Local Budget and Planning in Kerala

 

Local Budgeting and Planning in Kerala

A Study by CBGA

2009

Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability  New Delhi (www.cbgaindia.org) www.cbgaindia.org) 

 

0

 

Local Budgeting and Planning in Kerala A Study by CBGA

Supported by

Planning Commission of India

Study Team Kaushik Ganguly and Jawed Alam Khan

2009

Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability  New Delhi (www.cbgaindia.org) www.cbgaindia.org) 

 

1

 

Acknowledgements The study team would like to heartily acknowledge the efforts and assistance provided by all the Panchayat functionaries in Rajasthan and Kerala for making available the requisite documents. Special thanks are reserved for the Panchayat Secretaries of the visited Gram Panchayats in Rajasthan, who against all odds have been helpful in providing the study team with perceptions and documents. The study team is also grateful for the perceptions and clarity obtained from repeated conversations with the Chief Planning Officer of Jaipur, Mr S. R. Meena and the Block Development Officer of Amer, Ms. Neetu Rajeshwar and Mr. Rampal Sharma, DPC, SSS, Jaipur. The Study team is also indebted to the Panchayat functionaries and the administrative officials in Kerala for their support and assistance in obtaining the required documents and perceptions. A special note of thanks needs to be reserved for Mr S.M. Vijayanand, Principal Secretary, Local Administration for his perception which has lent this report the required clarity on various issues pertaining to Local Governance in Kerala. Worthy of mention, is also the support of District Administration officials at Mallapuram,  particularly Mr. Somen, Finance Officer for his guidance and logistical support. The study team also benefited greatly from the interactions of the elected representatives of the Panchayats, particularly Mr. Aryadan Shoukath, President of Nilambur Gram Panchayat. The study team expresses its deep gratitude to Ms. Shreena Ramanathan, Ms. Deepa V.K., Mr Prasad Nambiar, Mr. K.M. Rehman, Mr. Abinash Dash and Mr. Kausik K. Bhadra for their research assistance without which the study could not have been brought to its logical conclusion. The Study team owes special thanks to Shreena Ramanathan for her untiring effort in field investigation. The team is in great debt of K.M. Rehman and Kausik K. Bhadra for their excellent efforts in data entry and preparation of analytical tables. A special mention and thanks is deserved by Mr. Anurag Srivastav who had  painstakingly accomplished the groundwork of the study and its field investigation from which the team benefited immensely. The study team on behalf of CBGA is grateful to the SER Division, Planning Commission for entrusting CBGA with a crucial policy-oriented study, which has immense impact on knowledge capacity building and would influence CBGA’s work for years to come. Above all the team is ingratiated to all CBGA team members for their care, cooperation and support towards the study.

 

2

 

Executive Summary The case for fiscal autonomy to the Panchayats is a constitutional feature for over a decade and almost three plan periods now. The 73 rd   and the 74th  constitutional amendments have spelt out in a very clear terms that local governance ought to be the centre of planning, budgeting and administration. The important characteristics of this landmark constitutional legislation are the centrality of Gram Sabha to decentralised governance, reservations for women and SC/STs, devolution of functional, financial and administrative power to Panchayats in twenty-nine subjects, formation of the state election commission and state finance commission. rd 

An aspect of the 73   Act is setting up of State Finance Commission once in 5 years to review Pancahayts financial position and make suitable recommendations for fund devolution to Panchayats. Indeed, to realize the dream of true autonomy of Panchayats, there is a need of fiscal sufficiency and independence. Therefore, present study tried to examine whether the fiscal decentralization has been practiced or not and to what extent it has attempted to serve its true intent. Further, this study added to the existing knowledge regarding the constraints in the processes of fiscal decentralisation for taking corrective policy measures etc.  The study attempted to document the bottlenecks in the process of Panchayat planning,  budgeting

and

audit

and

accounts

along

with

fiscal

devolution

and

made

recommendations for improving the Panchayat planning and budgeting. It has the usefulness and relevance for the governments at all levels as well as for the voluntary sector at large for taking corrective policy actions and advocacy in the said area.  Observations

In Kerala, given the nature of decentralization, the bottlenecks in the fund flow and execution of plan are mostly second generation in nature compared to the other parts of the country as institutional reforms have mostly smoothen the problems in the operation of Panchayats. The Kerala State Government devolves around one-third of its plan outlay

 

3

 

to the Panchayats from the state budget and the funds devolved are all routed through state treasury from where Panchayats draw their requisite funds through the bill system. Therefore there is no system of giving advances advan ces for undertaking expenditures which de deals als with the problem of misappropriation of funds at the Panchayat level. Although the field investigation team on several account encountered allegations of corruption by Panchayat functionaries but such allegations were difficult to establish from the financial statements of the Panchayats. A major lacunae in the accounting and audit practices in Kerala is that none of local  bodies had their accounts up to date and audit of the annual financial statements by the LFAD have not been conducted for the last three or four years. Therefore the data obtained by the study team from the Panchayats at all levels were not audited statements. The huge gaps in conducting of audits are largely attributed to delay in preparation of the financial statements by the local bodies; however Panchayat functionaries counter-allege that it is the under-staffed LFAD that is responsible for the delay. dela y. A major issue that cropped up during the field study is that while all the Gram Panchayats had uniform and detailed formats for budget and annual financial statements with  provision for reporting up to minor heads of account, Block Panchayats and District Panchayats do not have uniform and comparable formats. Another major issue that has  been repeatedly commented on by the Grama Panchayat functionaries is that, given the detailed and cumbersome nature of the budget documents and the annual financial statements, the staffs at the G.P.s may lack the budget literacy required to fill up these documents in a correct manner. Moreover, some elected representatives of the G.P.s also commented that the benchmark for sanctioned staff strength of the Panchayats is archaic and there is a need for reassessment of required strength of staff for the Panchayats at each tier, given that there has been a considerable rise in population density of each Panchayat and the horizontal spread of activities by the Panchayats have also increased. Therefore, there is an urgent need for increasing the staff strength of the Panchayats or  provisions may be made for outsourcing certain activities of the Panchayats. There seems to be also a clear need for recruitment of qualified accounts manager for the Panchayats (particularly the G.P.s) given the quantum of funds these local bodies handle and the complexities surrounding the different heads of receipts and disbursements.

 

4

 

There is also a significant disjunction between the formulation of the plan, the budget by the Panchayats and the fund disbursal to the Panchayats by the state government. The annual budget for the Panchayats are to presented before the elected representatives of the Panchayat and the Gram Sabha by end of March of every financial year, however drafting of the annual plan begins only in May of every financial year with the constitution of Working Groups and as per government guideline should be finished by end of the month of August with the Annual Plan being widely publicized. In all  practicality, however, the duration of plan finalization is often stretched till the month of  Novenber. Therefore the Panchayats only get the last quarter of the financial year to implement the projects approved in the plan. On the front of fund disbursal from the state government, however, the Panchayats receive their grants in ten equal installments starting in the month of May every financial year. Therefore till the finalization of the annual plan most of the grant to the Panchayats lie unutilized as the local bodies by rule cannot incur expenditure on items not part of annual plan or budget. Moreover, the Panchayats are required to spend at least 70 per cent of the developmental and other grant received from the state government within the financial year failing which they are subjected to a budget cut by the amount of shortfall in utilization in the following year. Consequently the delay in plan formulation and the norms governing utilization in conjunction impact the quality of projects undertaken by the Panchayats, most of which are reported to be small and wasteful. Evidently, given this procedural bottlenecks, Panchayats lack the capacity to invest in large projects entailing creation of durable  public asset. There also seems to be a perpetual problem of spillover projects in every financial year which allows the Panchayats to bypass technical vetting by the Technical Advisory Groups and the DPC. The overall process has also rendered the annual budget document redundant as it does not reflect the expenditure pattern of the financial year for which the budget is drawn. Hence there is a need for rescheduling planning process, which ideally should start by the end of third quarter of the financial year with appraisal of performance of the three quarters, and culminate into a draft plan at least by the of the financial year, so that there is concomitance in the planning and budgeting process of the Panchayats. This would also enable the initiation of plan projects from the early part of

 

5

 

the financial year and thereby reduce wasteful and spillover projects. This would also make the drawing of annual budget process more meaningful. Despite the institutional parameters for better functioning of Panchayats are self-evident in Kerala, there is a need for restructuring of the procedural issues and enhancement of administrative capacity of the Panchayats for their better functioning. Overall the study broadly concludes that the status Panchayati Raj Institution in Rajasthan and Kerala are significantly different. In the former, decentralization to Panchayats is still at a very nascent stage and Panchayats at all tiers enjoy limited or no autonomy. In Kerala, by contrast, the Panchayats have been given maximum autonomy with each tier of Panchayat functioning independent of each other although with complementarities in their development initiatives.

 

6

 

Contents

I. Chapter 1: Legal Provisions Provisions and Inst Institutions itutions of Decent Decentralization ralization in Kerala 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Overview of Kerala Panchayati Raj Act: A Historical Account 1.3 Status Devolution in Kerala: An Assessment 1.4 Decentralized Decentralized Planning: Planning: A Review 

II. Chapter 2: Fund Flow and Financial Position of Panchayats in Kerala III. Key Findings of the Study

 

7

 

Local Planning and Budgeting in Kerela  Selected Socio-Economic Statistics of Kerala Indicators  Human Development Index value of India (2001) Human Development Index value of Kerala (2001) Total Population (Census 2001) Total Slum Population during 2001 (in lakhs) Life Expectancy at Birth (1999-2003) Literacy Rate (Census 2001) Gross Primary Enrolment Ratio in 2004-05 Dropout Rate in Class I-V during 2004-05  Number of Population below Poverty Line in 1999-2000 (in lakhs) Workforce Participation Rate in 2001 Employment in Organized Sector during 2003 (in lakhs) Job seekers registered with employment exchanges in2003 (in thousands) Range of Minimum Wages per day da y for Unskilled Workers in 2005 (in Rupees) Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) in 2005 (per 1000 live births) Effective Couple Protection Rates (CPR) in 2000 Child Health (Marriage below age 18) (%age) Officially Reported AIDS cases in 2004*

Values 0.472 0.638 31,841,374 0.65 73.6 90.86 76.44 5.80 41.04 32.30 12.1 3635.1

72-189 14 39.6 6.6 1769

Source:  Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Selected Socio-Economic Source:  Statistics India 2006, Central Statistical Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. *Experts believe these cases represent only a small portion of actual cases of AIDS in the country.

 

8

 

A Profile of Panchayats in Kerala Sl. No. 1

Number of Panchayats at Different Tier Level of Panchayat No. of Panchayats District Panchayat 14

2 3

Block GramaPanchayat Panchayat

152 999

Source: Status of Panchayats: State Profile of Kerala, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, GoI .

Number of Grama Panchayats by Population Distribution  Range of Population Below 10,000

No. of Grama Panchayats 13

Between 10,000 and 20,000

233

Between 20,000 and 30,000

429

Between 30,000 and 40,000

243

Between 40,000 and 50,000

69

Above 50,000

12

Total

999

Source: Status of Panchayats: State Profile of Kerala, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, GoI.

 

9

 

Distribution of Grama Panchayats According to Area  No. of Grama  Area No.  Panchayats 1.  Below 5 Sq.km. 5 2.  Between 5 – 10 Sq.km. 64 128 3.  Between 10 – 15 Sq.km. 4.  Between 15 – 20 Sq.km. 199 5.  Between 20 – 30 Sq.km. 282 6.  Between 30 – 40 Sq.km. 125 7.  Between 40 – 50 Sq.km. 45 8.  Between 50 – 75 Sq.km. 66 9.  Between 75 – 100 Sq.km. 34 10.  Between 100 – 150 Sq.km. 26 11.  Between 150 – 200 Sq.km. 8 12.  Above 200 Sq.km. 17 Total 999 Source: Status of Panchayats: State Profile of Kerala, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, GoI.

 

10

 

Legal Provisions and Institutions of Decentralizati Decentralization on in Kerala 1.1 Introduction rd 

The Kerala Panchayati Raj Act was enacted in 1994 in conformity with the 73   th

and 74  Amendment Act to the Constitution institutionalizing a three-tier system of local rd 

governance all over the country. The 73  Amendment to the constitution envisaged the state government to decentralize a major portion of their governance activity and public service delivery to the local self government institutions. Accordingly lists of 29 subjects were drawn up for which funds, functions and functionaries were to be devolved to the Panchayati Raj Institutions by the state governments. Given that the Constitutional Amendment left it to the discretion of the state governments on the extent and number of subjects to devolve, decentralization across the country has been uneven. Kerala is among the very few states which put aside the tendency towards centralization shown by many other states and laid the path towards bringing governance closer the people, ensuring accountability and transparency to the operations of the government. It devolved twenty six functions to the institution of local self governance along with concomitant funds and functionaries. Among its other notable achievements are, it has constituted three state finance commissions (SFC), to deliberate on the revenue and expenditure requirements of the local bodies and the formula for sharing of revenue between the state government and local bodies, the recommendations of which has been accepted and implemented. Additionally the state also devolves around one-third of its annual plan outlay to local self government institutions (LSGIs) and has a separate window for the local bodies (Annexure IV) in its annual budget which puts forth earmarked allocation for each and every LSGI at the beginning of the financial year. However, to understand the process of decentralization in the state one needs to look at its evolution and its presen2t contours. In post-independent India, facilitation for institutionalizing panchayats came in the form of a Directive Principle in Article 4 of the Indian Constitution which says “State has to take necessary measures to organize Grama Panchayats and provide with the  power and operational authority necessary for it to function as a constituent of the government machinery.” Panchayati Raj, however, got a major boost when the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee, constituted by the Planning Commission, submitted its report. It

 

11

 

 pointed out that democratic decentralization was the key to social development and  proposed a three-tier system of panchayats consisting of Gram Panchayats, Block Panchayats and District Parishads. As the report got approved at the National Development council, every state implemented local governance with some local variance. Since local self governance was incorporated in the state list, the states were not  bound to implement the recommendations of Balwant Rai Mehta Committee in its entirety. Panchayats in many states were just statutory committee without any elections  being held. Kerala

introduced

a

Panchayati

Raj

Bill

in

1960

incorporating

the

recommendations of the Balwant Rai Mehta Committee and the clauses in the law that already existed in the Travancore, Cochin and Malabar region. Accordingly, elections to  panchayats were held in 1963 and 922 panchayat councils assumed power in 1964. However the Panchayat Act of 1960, did not bring in financial empowerment of  panchayats in a major way, it only chalked out the responsibilities of the panchayats as mandatory, those to be discretionary, those as government agents and routine responsibilities. The mandatory activities comprised of mainly of civic services and developmental activities were only to be undertaken on the availability of finances from the government. Many other reform measures on the panchayat administration were undertaken which mostly failed to make impact and the administration of panchayats were largely governed by the Panchayat Act of 1960, until the enactment of Kerala Panchayati Raj Act of 1994.

Some Other Reform Measures

  Kerala Panchayat Union Council and District Parishad Bill of 1964

•

  Two -tier Panchayat Raj Bill of 1967

•

  Kerala District Administration Bill of 1971

•

   District administration administration Bill of 1979 

•

 

12

 

1.2 Overview of Kerala Panchayati Raj Act: A Historical Account 

The Kerala Panchayati Raj Act 1994 was the final landmark in institutionalizing and setting in motion local self governance as was envisaged from the beginning Indian  planning and governance. It aimed at implementing in letter and spirit, the rd 

 pronouncements of 73   Constitution Amendment Act drawing from its historical experiences and experiments in local governance. It spelt out categorically, policy  pronouncements on important aspects of local governance like importance of Gram Sabha in decentralized planning and governance; reservation of membership and leadership in the panchayat for marginalized groups; powers, duties and responsibilities for the panchayat; election of the panchayats and constitution of the election commission; financial powers, resources and constitution of finance commission, financial management of the panchayats and procedures related to audits and accounts and constitution of district planning committees to co-ordinate and vet the panchayat level  planning activities. After the enactment of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act, a State Election Commission was appointed and the first election to the panchayats was held in 1995. The first State Finance Commission was also appointed in 1994 to deliberate on the sharing of funds between the local bodies and the state government. As the panchayats earlier carried out only civic duties, it did not have enough funds for developmental activities,  but with the redefining of its role administrative duties, welfare and developmental activities also came under its purview. Therefore there was a larger need to devolve significant share of the consolidated fund of the state government to panchayats to carry out these functions efficiently. With the panchayati raj Act in place, the state government designated the ninth five year plan as the People’s Plan which became a hallmark in the efforts towards engineering people’s participation in the planning process. The People’s Plan was taken up on campaign mode to create awareness and instill confidence among the masses on decentralized planning and its various facets like formulation of the plan, its implementation and monitoring. The People’s Plan Campaign directly handed the baton to the common people to take lead on the development of the local area, quite contrary to

 

13

 

earlier practice of involving them only at the stage of implementation. The Campaign,  besides encouraging people’s participation, also focused on mobilization of local resources in the development process by involving different stakeholders. It, more importantly relaxed bureaucratic control by empowering common people and put major thrust of the panchayats on productive sectors like agriculture and allied services, infrastructure like roads and bridges, poverty alleviation and housing and social services like health and education. Table 1.1: Salient Features of the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 Broad Areas Covered Gram Sabha

Relevant Clauses in the Act Clause 3

Reservation for Women, Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9

Powers, Duties and Responsibilities of Panchayats

Clauses 166 to 178

Finance Commission, Financial powers and resources for the  panchayats.  panchayat s.

Clause 186 and 195 to 236

Remarks

Original provisions provided for gram sabha to be comprised of all voters of the village who should meet at least twice a year and partake in all developmental and welfare activities of the panchayat. Subsequently through Amendments to the Act in 1999, more powers were given to gram sabhas so that people could  become direct partners to governance. governance. The numbers of meetings were also increased to once in three months. Not less than one-third of the membership and president posts were reserved for women. Similarly, seats and  president posts were reserved for SCs and STs as per their proportion to the  population within within the local local body. body. There is also a special provision for reservation of one seat for the dominant section among them, in case population falls below prescribed levels. Executive powers were transferred from officials to elected responsibilities. Legal provisions for transferring control of various institutions to panchaya panchayats ts were enacted. In addition to civic duties, panchayats acquired developmental responsibilities and powers. The Act clearly makes makes provision for the appointment of a State Finance Commission for determining the rate and the criteria on the basis of which fund are to be devolved to the local bodies. There are provisions assignmentand of own revenue resourcesfor to panchayats

 

14

 

 panchayats are empowered to administer  panchayats administer taxes and raise contributions from  beneficiaries  beneficia ries for specific developm developmental ental  projects. District planning committees are to be formed for co-ordination of panchayat level planning activities and draft the

District Planning Committees

Accounts and Audit

Clause 215

development plancomprise for districts. The committee should 15 members among which 12 must be elected from  panchayats.  panchayat s. Apart from regular financial management and audits, there were additional  provisions for performance audit by officials and social audits by the gram sabha.

Source: Handbook Series on Panchayat Administration, KILA.

The Kerala Panchayati Raj Act was enacted with urgency to meet the constitutional obligations of the state government and as a result many provisions antithetical to the essence of decentralized governance. Therefore in 1996 a committee was appointed under the leadership of Dr Satyabrata Sen to look into the existing  provisions and operations of the panchayats and recommend way of making decentralization more meaningful. The recommendations of Sen Committee played a critical role in shaping the administration and functioning of the panchayats in the present day. It was on the basis of the recommendations of the Sen Committee that Right to Information was made a fundamental right of every citizen and provisions for  publications of Citizen’s Charter by every local body bo dy was enacted to make transparency a constant feature. It also recommended reduction in government control over panchayats to be minimal and dismissals of panchayat councils can only be taken with due considerations to the opinions of appointed Ombudsman and Tribunals. The commission also espoused that pachayats being independent bodies of self-governance, they should have clear cut responsibilities with minimal overlap, however there should also exist complementarities in the functioning of the panchayats panch ayats both in their horizontal spread and among the vertical tiers.

 

15

 

1.3 Status Devolution in Kerala: An Assessment 

As already mentioned, Kerala is among the few states (others being Karnataka rd 

and West Bengal) to have devolved most of functions enshrined in the 73  Constitutional Amendment, along with concomitant funds and functionaries.

Therefore it becomes

 pertinent to map their extent with regard to the three broad dimensions of devolution viz. functions, functionaries and funds. Devolution of Functions F unctions

The Panchayats have been given the responsibility of development and management of productive sectors like Agriculture and allied sectors and the following have become the normal part of their functioning

  Agricultural extension services providing support to the farmers for increasing production

•

and productivity. productivity.

  Watershed management and minor irrigation.

•

  Dairy development. Animal Husbandry including veterinary care. •  •

  Inland fisheries.

•

They are also responsible for promotion of tiny, cottage and small industries in their  jurisdiction. The local governments are entirely responsible for the planning and implementation poverty alleviation programmes including all the centrally sponsored anti-poverty programmes and state plan schemes. In the area of social services like health, all institutions other than medical colleges and big regional specialty hospitals have been placed under the control of the local governments. Similarly for the education sector, in rural areas the high schools and Higher Secondary schools have been transferred to the District Panchayats and the primary schools have been transferred to Gram Panchayats; in urban areas, all schools have been transferred to the urban local governments. Apart from these responsibility of providing midday meal in schools have also been transferred to the local bodies. Thus most of the functions relating to human and social development have been transferred to local governments. Social welfare and  poverty reduction are now the domain of local governments who also have considerable responsibility in the promotion and development of the primary sector. Among social

 

16

 

welfare, barring statutory functions relating to juvenile justice, the entire functions have gone to local governments. Programmes like Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) are entirely implemented by Gram Panchayats and Urban Local Bodies. Pensions to the aged, widows, orphans and care of the disabled have become a local government responsibility. Local infrastructure creation has also come into the domain of Panchayats and urban local bodies. Barring highways and major district roads, connectivity in terms of construction and maintenance has become local government responsibility. Institutions of public service like hospitals, schools, anganwadis, veterinary institutions, Krishi Bhawans, hostels for Scheduled Castes and Care institutions for different disadvantaged groups have been transferred to local governments on, as is where condition is. The responsibilities of local governments in respect of these institutions are mostly non-plan in nature and include:

  maintenance of infrastructure

•

  upkeep and maintenance of equipment

•

  replenishment of consumables

•

  establishment charges relating to telephone, water, electricity, fuel etc.

•

  mid-day-m mid-day-meal eal cost in schools.

•

The whole of sanitation and most of rural water supply has also been moved to the domain of local governments. Moreover, Kerala on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee on Decentralization of Powers (Sen Committee) gave statutory basis to activity mapping through amendments to the Panchayati Raj Act in 1999, thereby clearly demarcating the roles and responsibilities within the different tiers of Panchayats.

Devolution of Functionaries

The Government of Kerala transferred functionaries to the Panchayat, connected to the functions it had devolved to the various levels of Panchayats. A clear mapping of the functionaries devolved to each level of Panchayat has been given in the table below:

 

17

 

Table 1.2: Functionaries Devolved to Three Tiers Panchayat Department

Grama Panchayat

Block Panchayat

District Panchayat

1.  Agriculture

Agricultural officer and auxiliary posts (Officers and staff of Krishi Bhavan)

One post of Assistant Director and auxiliary posts

•

  Principal Agricultural Officer

and auxiliary posts •  Two posts of deputy Director and auxiliary posts soil conservation   District officer and auxiliary posts executivee •  One Assistant executiv

•

Engineer and connected posts

  Officers and staff of Mobile

•

2.  Animal Husbandry

Officers and staff of Veterinary Sub Centre, Veterinary Dispensary/Hospitall and Dispensary/Hospita ICDP sub centers

3.  Dairy Development 4.  Fisheries

Officers and staff of Veterinary Poly Clinic, Mobile farm unit, Mobile veterinary dispensary

Block Level Dairy Extension Officer and auxiliary posts

  District level officer (Deputy

One Fisheries sub Inspector (in the Grama Panchayat wherever necessary)

5.  Industries

•

Director) and auxiliary posts

  Teachers and other staff

•

Industries Extension Officer

6.  Rural Development

Two Village Extension Officers (including lady VEO)

The post of Block Development Officer and auxiliary posts

7.  Social Welfare

Officers and staff of Day care centres and Aganawadies (ICDS Supervisor, Aganwadi worker/helper etc.)

Officers and staff of Child Development Project Office, Old age homes Care Homes and similar other institutions

8.  Cooperation 9.  SC Development

 

soil testing laboratory, District sales counter, District agriculture farm, coconut nursery •  District Animal Husbandry officer and auxiliary posts •  Officers and staff of ICDP area office, Mobile Veterinary Dispensary, Mobile farm unit, clinical laboratories not attached to District Veterinary centres •  Deputy Director and auxiliary posts

Officers and staff of

Block Level SC

Balawadies, Balawadi cum feeding centres, seasonal

Development officer and staff

fisheries schools General Manager and auxiliary  posts of District Industries Industries centres •  One post of Assistant Development Commissioner and the District Women’s welfare officer and auxiliary staff All functionaries of DRDA District Social welfare Officer, District Programme Officer and auxiliary posts

One Assistant Registrar and One clerk District SC Development officer and auxiliary posts

18

 

11.  Health Services (Allopathy)

day care Centre and dormitories of the respective places. Officers and staff of •  Balawadies, Medical Unit, Nursery schools, midwifery centres & Ayurvedic dispensaries of the respective places. Tribal Extension •  Officers in 43 Grama Panchayats Medical Officers and other staff of PHCs/ Govt. Dispensary and sub centres

12.  Health Services (Homoeo)

Medical Officer and staff of Government Homoeo dispensaries and hospitals

10.  ST Development

and Staff of prematric hostels Tribal Extension Officer

ITD Project Officer and auxiliary posts

Medical Officers and staff of Block Level PHC/ CHC/Taluk Hospital/ Govt. Hospital Medical officers and auxiliary posts of Taluk Hospital

•

of the respective places 13.  Health services (ISM)

Medical officer and staff of Ayurveda dispensary and hospitals of the respective places.

14.  General Education

Headmasters, teachers and other staff of Primary Schools

Medical officers and auxiliary posts of Taluk Hospital

auxiliary posts •  Medical Officers, Supt. and all other staff of District Hospitals

  District Medical Officer and

•

auxiliary posts •  Medical Officers, Supt. and all other staff of District Hospitals •  District Medical Officer and auxiliary posts •  Medical Officers, Supt. and all other staff of District Hospitals •  District level Officer and auxiliary posts •  District and Assistant Educational Officers and auxiliary posts •  Teaches and connected posts High Schools, Special Schools and Teachers Training Institutes ♦  Teachers and connected  posts of Higher Secondary/ Secondary/ Vocational Higher Secondary Schools All staff of Tailoring and Garment making centres and Tailoring trade Centres

15.  Higher Secondary Education 16.  Technical Education 17.  Public Works Department/ Irrigation Department

  District Medical Officer and

Assistant Engineer and auxiliary posts (One AE for two Grama G rama Panchayats)

Assistant executive Engineer and auxiliary posts

One Executive Engineer and auxiliary posts

Source: Status of Panchayati Raj – State Profile of Kerala, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Govt. of India

 

19

 

The Panchayats have also been given disciplinary control over its own staff and the transferred staff from other departments. The elected bodies have been declared as executive authorities and the transferred officers from other departments function under the control and superintendence of Panchayats. The transferred officials are required to explain their performance in their respective sectors in the meetings of the Panchayats. The department concerned of the transferred staffs pays their salaries while the salary of the Secretary and own staffs of the Gram Panchayat are met by the Panchayat itself. The Panchayat is also authorised to take disciplinary action against their staff for defaults requiring minor punishment. For major offences the President is authorized to prepare and submit an enquiry report, based on which action is initiated by the designated disciplinary authority of the respective departments. The government of Kerala has constituted three different cadre of services for the Panchayats, under three departments which exercise control over their respective cadre of staffs working with Panchayats. The Department of Panchayats supervises the Gram Panchayat staff. The Rural Development Department supervises the Block Panchayat staff and the Local Self Government Department supervises the District Panchayat staff. The state government fills up the vacancies in the Panchayats through the State Public Service Commission (PSC) and even the Panchayats are able to notify their vacancies to the PSC through the Panchayat Department. Moreover to fill up technical expertise gaps of the Panchayats, a virtual technical cadre of service for the Panchayats has been formed by redeploying staff from the Public works and Irrigation departments, so that on an average there exists one Assistant Engineer for two Grama Panchayats, one Assistant Executive Engineer for a Block Panchayat and one Executive Engineer for a District Panchayat. In order to make the Technical Sanction process more transparent, a committee system has been introduced, constituted by engineers from the government, academic institutions and nongovernmental organizations at the levels of District Panchayat and Block Panchayats for vetting the plans of the panchayats and awarding technical sanctions.

 

20

 

Devolution of Funds

The Conformity Act for Panchayats in Kerala gives wide ranging autonomy to the Panchayats to raise resources, plan for activities and execute developmental projects in the spheres devolved to them. The state budget of Kerala has an exclusive window for the Panchayats (Appendix IV) giving details of the funds allocated to the local bodies under all the head of accounts. This devolution from the state budget has three sources of untied fund for the Panchayats i) funds for development expenditure, ii) fund for maintenance of assets, iii) fund for traditional functions (General Purpose Fund). It is noteworthy that general sector funds devolved to Panchayats include and subsume within it the Central Finance Commission (CFC) grants. CFC grants are subsumed into the State devolution, on the ground that the State S tate is already giving substantial grants to Pancha Panchayats. yats. As per the Conformity Act, the Gram Panchayats are also capable of raising revenue through tax and non-tax sources devolved to them. The own tax revenue of the Gram Panchayats is constituted by levy of property tax, professional tax, entertainment tax, advertisement tax, service tax and show tax.  Among the major non-tax own revenue sources are rents, other income from properties such as markets, bus stands, shopping complexes etc, license fees, income from rivers in case of Panchayat which have rivers (sale of sand), fees, fines. The District Panchayats and the Block Panchayats do not have any tax revenue sources; some sources of non-tax revenue like rents from buildings and agricultural machinery etc. therefore comprise their own source revenue. There are no restrictions put by Government on the utilization of own revenue by the Panchayats. The formula for transfer of funds to Panchayats includes a weightage aimed at incentivising collection of own revenues by Panchayats.

 

21

 

Table1.3: Sources of Revenue for the Panchayats Sl. No.

Sources of Revenue

Remarks

1.

Own Sources of Revenue Tax Revenue •  Property Tax

Tax revenue sources are assigned to the Gram Panchayats exclusively.

2.

Profession Tax    Advertisement Tax •  Entertainment Tax •  Show Tax •  Service Tax Only some of the non-tax revenue sources Non-Tax Revenue License Fees are assigned to Block or District •  Registration Fees •  Panchayats. Rent on Land and Buildings •  Receipts from markets, bus •  • •

stands and slaughter houses Revenue from sand mining •  Fines • 

1.

Transfer of Resources Category A funds (non-plan): Development Fund

2.

Category B funds (plan): State Sponsored Schemes

3.

Category B funds (non-plan): Social welfare

4.

Category C funds (non-plan): Maintenance Grant

5.

Category D funds (non-plan): General Purpose fund Category E funds: Centrally Sponsored schemes.

6.

For decentralized planning from the state government. Panchayats draw money from treasury through bill system. For state sponsored projects from the state government. Panchayats draw money from treasury through bill system. For social welfare schemes such as unemployment allowances and pensions for agricultural labourers. For the maintenance of road and non-road assets by the panchayats. Panchayats draw money from treasury through bill system. For executing the routine expenditure of the Panchayats and transferred institutions. For implementation of centrally sponsored schemes like NREGS, SGSY, IAY, TSC, drought relief and literacy programmes. Grants under this category include both state share and central share. SGSY and IAY are transferred only to Block Panchayats.

Source: Financial Management, Handbook Series on Panchayat Administration, Kerala institute of Local Administration.

 

22

 

Process of Devolution of Funds

Allocations of development funds from the state government are made in ten equal monthly installments on the first working day of the month from May to February every year. The Panchayats are able to utilize the funds placed placed at their disposal in the treasury as per the monthly allocation letter and to the extent of amount allocated in the name of the Panchayat. Allocations of Maintenance Fund are made in ten equal monthly installments from April to January every year; whereas General Purpose Fund is devolved in twelve equal monthly installments. Panchayats are able to withdraw funds from the treasury through contingent bills, on the basis of allocation letters in the name of individual Panchayats. The State government however, has not accepted the system suggested by the Government of India on direct transfer of funds to Panchayats from the State Consolidated Fund through banks.

1.4 Decentralized Planning: A Review 

The People’s Plan Campaign launched at the beginning of the Ninth Five Year Plan sowed the seeds of decentralized and participatory planning in Kerala. The purpose of  participatory planning was to give local needs top to p priority in the process p rocess of planning for development. This gave credence to the process of planning that it was not policy  priorities dictated from above but a process that addresses real issues of the people thereby encouraging better participation of the people in the projects and improved upon their implementation. The planning process demanded that projects under local level  planning should designed by people with exhaustive knowledge about the locality and aware of it developmental needs. This process would enable the linking of locally available human and natural resources with the need-based planning in an effective manner. A keystone in the process of participatory planning is the articulation of demands and identification of beneficiaries by people themselves in the Gram Sabha meetings. This ensures the distribution of gains from development among all segments of the population. However, a concern may arise here that, local societies may be quite divisive and certain marginalized groups may be incapable of articulating their demands either because fewer presence in terms of population or social oppression. Nevertheless, the major advantage of decentralized and participatory planning is that it addresses

 

23

 

effectively issues like lack of transparency, accountability, efficiency and time over-run, resource leakage and corruption commonly associated with centralized planning. Table 1.4: Steps in the Process of Decentralized Planning: Preparation of Annual Plan Sl. Steps in the Process of No. Planning  Step 1: Situation analysis by 1. local governments. 

2.

3.

Description

The Working Groups are constituted for the various sectors of development falling under the domain of each tier of Panchayats and a quick analysis is done of the respective sectors to generate project ideas for the relevant year’s  programme and a report is prepared. This will  be further expanded and deepened for the  purpose of the entire five year plan.

Step 2: Consolidation of

Consolidation to be done by holding a meeting

Working Group reports.

of all Localpriorities Governments the DPC to decide immediate to be by followed in the Annual Plan.

Step 3: Holding consultations with key stakeholders.

A pre Gram Sabha/Ward Sabha consultation is  being held with different key stakeholders and suggestions are sought for the Annual Plan and separately for the five year plan. Stake holders mostly belong to Farmers and agricultural workers •  People engaged in industrial activities and •  services (both traditional and modern) including workers the Area Development Societies    All Headmasters and key Parent-Teachers

• •

Association office bearers Anganwadi workers and Mothers’ •  Committee Chairpersons All Hospital Management Committee •  members of the Government Hospitals within the Local •  Government (of all three streams) and key medical professionals within the Local government, from the NGO and private sector. Youth Clubs, youth organizations and activists and functionaries of the literacy and library movements, eminent  persons in the field of arts and culture and representatives of disabled groups.

 

24

 

  Vanasamrakshana Samithies and

•

environmental activitists. •  Political parties and trade unions.

4.

Step 4: Holding of Grama Sabhas/Ward Sabhas

  Assessment of performance of previous

•

year’s Plan. •  Determination Determina tion priorities for the Annual Plan 2007-08

  Taking of preliminary decisions in respect

•

of preparation of Watershed Plans. Validation of BPL list. • 

5.

Step 5: Drawing of draft plan  proposals

Draft plan proposals are prepared by b y the Working Groups for their respective sectors.

6.

Step 6: Development Seminar

Discussion of the draft plan in development seminar. The development seminars suggest the  broad priorities and general strategies of developmental projects to be taken up for a  particular year.

7.

Step 7: Prioritization and resource allocation by the Local Governments. 

8.

Step 8: Priorities to Projects

As per the strategies evolved in the development seminar sectors of interventions are prioritized and resources are accordingly allocated. Preparation of detailed projects by Working Groups for each of the sectors.

9.

Step 9: Submission to District Planning Committees (DPCs) for vetting and approval.

Finalisation of the Annual Plan by b y Local Governments and submission of the following documents to the DPC.

 

•

 

•

 

•

  • 

•

Documents relating to Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha, Working Group and Development Seminar. Expenditure statements of Annual Plan 2006-07 based on revised DPC  proceedings.  proceeding s. Plan document for 2007-08 containing same Chapters as previous Annual Plan and a new Chapter on Governance. (This would include full details of all spillover projects  being continued continued during the current current year). Anti-poverty sub-plan for 2007-08 Tribal Sub Plan for 2007-08 (wherever applicable)

  Maintenance Plan for the year 2007-08.   Resolutions of the Local Government

•

•

 

25

 

approving the Plans and spillover works. •  Statement on Own Revenue used in Plan •  Statistical Annexes

Step 10: Approval of Plans by DPC and issue of proceedings  Step 11: After approval the DPC would consolidate the plans of Local Governments into a District Plan.

10. 11.

Source: Guidelines for the Preparation of Annual Plan 2007-08 and XIth Five Year Plan, Govt. of Kerala.

Working Groups

The Working Groups are a mandatory part of the process of decentralized planning and Local Governments including Gram Panchayats are free to constitute as many Working Groups as may be required depending on availability of experts. Each Working Group is to be headed by an elected member and the Working Group on Development of Scheduled Castes should be headed by an SC Member and the Working Group for Women and Children by a lady member. The Working Groups on Watershed Management and Anti Poverty Sub Plan should be headed by the Chairperson herself. A leading expert in the sector concerned should be nominated as the Vice- Chairman of the Working Group. The Convener of the Working Group should be the senior most official transferred to the local government in that sector. Other professional officials shall be its members. The sectors for which Working Groups are constituted are given below:

  Watershed Management including Environment, Agriculture, Irrigation, Animal

•

Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and related sectors.

  Local Economic Development other than agriculture including local industries,

•

 promotion of private private and community community investment investment and mobilization mobilization of of credit.

  Poverty Reduction including housing

•

  Development of Scheduled Castes

•

  Development of Women and Children

•

  Health

•

  Water Supply and Sanitation including Solid Waste Management

•

  Education, Culture, Sports and Youth

•

  Infrastructure

•

 

26

 

  Social Security including care of the aged and disabled

•

  Energy

•

  Governance Plan

•

1.5 Conclusion

To sum up the Kerala Panchayati Raj Act of 1994 became the usher for reforms in the sector of local governance and facilitated incorporation of several institutional  parameters that have brought in transparency and accountability of the bureaucracy as well as elected representatives in front of the common people. It established each tier of local bodies as separate and autonomous institutions of local governance and facilitated the direct participation of the common masses into this governance structure and the development planning of the locality. At outset these institutional parameters put in place  by the Kerala government makes the state poised for an all encompassing development and political stability. However, the practical aspects of the decentralization process in Kerala need to be examined ex amined to understand its strengths and its weaknesses.

 

27

 

Chapter 2 Fund Flow and Financial Position of the Panchayati Raj Institutions in Kerala 2.1 Introduction As discussed in the previous chapter, the institutional reforms governing the Local Self-

Government Institutions (LSGIs) in Kerala has been groundbreaking compared to the achievements of other states. The reforms have empowered the elected representatives of LSGIs and through the Gram Sabha the people themselves to have a say in the process of development and accountability of the bureaucracy. A key component of this process of devolution has been the financial empowerment of the LSGIs, particularly of the Gram Panchayats (GPs). The GPs forming the keystone in the scheme decentralized governance has been given significant control over resource generation through taxes and non-tax sources; borrowing from co-operative banks and accepting contributions from  beneficiaries for particular development projects. Apart from these a significant  percentage of (thirty per cent) plan outlay from the state budget is transferred to the LSGIs along with maintenance grants for maintenance of assets and general purpose grants for meeting establishment requirements. Given that LSGIs command significant resources in the overall scheme of development interventions in Kerala and possess the autonomy to plan their activities accordingly, it is pertinent to assess the financial  position of the LSGIs to understand their budget priorities and focus of planning. Accordingly two districts, viz. Ernakulam and Mallapuram, were selected in Kerala on the basis of the State Human Development Report. For each district further two blocks were selected on the basis of their economic performance as suggested by the district level officials. Therefore two blocks in Ernakulam are Vypin (backward) and Kothamangalam (developed), whilst in Mallapuram two blocks are Nilambur (developed) and Perumbadappa (backward). Similarly for each of the blocks two Gram Panchayats were selected for survey. Therefore in this present study, there are total eight GPs surveyed which are Nilambur and Amarambalam from Nilambur block; Alamkode and Perumbadappa from Perumbadappa; while Pallipuram and Njarakkal were selected from Vypin; Kootampuzha and Nellikkushi GPs from Kothamangalam. The documents that

 

28

 

were collected from the LSGIs were Annual Financial Statements (AFS) of latest years available, Annual Budgets Documents of latest years available and the latest plan documents. 2.2 Recommendations of Third State Finance Commission: A Review 

The Third State Finance Commission (TSFC) was constituted in September 2004 to review and deliberate on the financial positions of the Panchayats and Municipalities, make recommendations on the principles which should govern the distribution of the net  proceeds of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees leviable by the State between the State, Panchayats and Municipalities and inter se distribution of the funds between all tiers of Panchayats and Municipalities. The TSFC as per its terms of reference also deliberated on the determination of the taxes, duties, tolls and fees which may be assigned or appropriated by the Panchayats/Municipalities and grant-in-aid to the local bodies from the Consolidated Fund of the States. The Commission, among others, also made recommendations on a) efficient financial management of local bodies with particular reference to efficiency in resource mobilization and economy in expenditure; b)  procedures to be followed for smooth flow of funds to local self governments and to ensure financial accountability; c) systems and procedures with respect to budgeting, accounting and auditing; d) systems and procedures for monitoring the fiscal  performance of local self-governments. The TSFC in its approach took into cognizance the increased role of LSGIs in developmental activity particularly relating to decentralized planning and executing local developmental projects catering to needs and aspirations of local communities and aimed at consolidation of path-breaking initiatives by the earlier finance commissions. It also aimed to improve upon existing procedures and practices to ensure greater accountability and smoothness of operations of the LSGIs without compromising the fiscal autonomy of the local bodies. The Commission also kept into focus the resource constraint and issues of fiscal viability faced by the State Government in recommending resource transfers from the state to the local bodies. The major recommendation of TSFC pertains to devolution of funds to LSGIs as share in State tax revenues. The Commission recommends that a total amount of Rs 12515 crore shall be transferred to LSGIs over a period of 2006-07 to 2010-11, with a sum of Rs 2050  

29

 

crore being devolved in 2006-07 and devolution for subsequent years being arrived at by applying a ten percent annual growth rate. The devolution would be bifurcated into three different streams of funds a) expenditure on the traditional function of LSGIs (Rs 300 crore for 2006-07); b) expenditure on maintenance of assets (Rs. 350 crore for 2006-07) and c) expenditure on developing and expanding of services and institutions transferred to LSGIs (Rs. 1400 crore for 2006-07). The recommendation of devolution was accepted  by the State Government with the qualifier that such devolution will also include Local Bodies Grant received by the State Government from the award of the Twelfth Finance Commission. Moreover, the entire devolution is reflected as ‘Compensation and assignment to Local Self Governments’ in the non-plan revenue account of the State Budget under the major head 3604, with the exception that funds for road maintenance are provided under appropriate PWD (Public Works Department) head of account as the Twelfth Finance Commission (TFC) and government of India have linked TFC Road Maintenance Grants (which cover roads transferred to LSGIs) to the State Government making certain minimum provisions and actual expenditure under the PWD Maintenance head of account. The Commission recommended that additional resources through three different means can be raised by a) increase in tax and non-tax revenues; b) Public contribution and c)  borrowing. However, tax rates may be increased only after careful consideration if revenue mobilization from existing tax structure has already been exhausted and implications of raising tax rates or new taxes are carefully considered. Moreover, use of  borrowing for raising resources is to be used to a limited extent only and there should be a clear schedule for repayment of outstanding debt. Accordingly the State Government limited the borrowing capacity of Grama Panchayats to five percent of total own revenue receipts and five percent of the allocated funds for development in the year for Block Panchayats and District Panchayats. However, no limit is applicable in case of borrowing for commercial project, the cash flows from which can repay rep ay the loan. As per the recommendation of the TSFC, the release of the share of tax revenue should  be as per a schedule known to LSGIs so that they can plan their activities in advance. Accordingly the Commission recommended that the funds meant for traditional functions

 

30

 

should be transferred in twelve equal monthly installments from April to March of a financial year. Similarly, funds meant for maintenance should be transferred in ten equal monthly installments from April to January and funds for developmental expenditure should be transferred in ten equal monthly installments from May to February of the financial year. To facilitate easy withdrawal of funds from the treasury and to enable the local bodies to carry over some of the unutilized funds beyond the financial year, the commission recommended that the funds transferred as per schedule explained above be transfer credited from major head of account 3604 to Public Account (major head 8448) before the fifth day of each month. Accordingly there is three Deposit Accounts under 8448 for each of the three different kind of funds mentioned before. For bills presented for withdrawals from Public Account within the limits of monthly release credited to the account of the LSGIs, no treasury restrictions or ways and means clearance from Finance Department will be applicable. However, for utilization of funds carried over from  previous monthly release special authorization from Finance Department has to be obtained. In addition if the outstanding amount remaining for any LSGI in the Public Account is more than ten percent of the total amount released as on the closing of financial year, the excess over ten percent will be reduced from the budget provisions for the LSGI for next year. The above mentioned processes are however interim arrangement till the LSGIs are given full fiscal autonomy whereby they will have full control over their finances, by the year 2008-09. Under such a regime each LSGI will have four separate bank accounts for a) traditional functions; b) for maintenance expenditure; c) funds for development of services and institutions and d) for agency functions like state sponsored schemes, centrally sponsored schemes etc.. However a crucial component of imparting full fiscal autonomy to LSGIs is that each of these institutions needs to have a functioning Finance and Accounts Wing (even in a Grama Panchayat) for proper financial management. The State Government will facilitate the process through redeployment of necessary staffs, emphasizing a computer based accounting system and providing adequate training to existing staffs.

 

31

 

2.3 Devolution from the State Budget

The State Government devolves a significant portion of resources both plan and non-plan to the local bodies. However, despite the claims that Kerala has devolved 26 subjects to the Panchayats with funds, functions and functionaries, the following exercise, which attempts to map the 29 listed functions in the Constitution with budget heads from the Kerala State Budget, found that there exists Panchayat Window for only 12 functions out of 29. Out of the 12 subjects for whom there is a Panchayat Window, three have no allocation. For the remaining 9 subject, only Poverty Alleviation and Rural Housing along with Social Security and Welfare have substantial resources being given to PRIs out of the total allocation on these budget heads. However, it may also be noted that certain functions are listed as traditional functions of the PRIs and expenditure requirement for such functions may be met out of the tax devolution given by the State government to the PRIs. For example, the maintenance grant that the PRI receive as devolution from State Government has a specific component for Road Maintenance but there is no separate allocation for PRIs under the major head for Roads and Bridges. Table 3.1: Devolution of Funds from the State Budget of Kerala as per 2007-08 (B.E.) 1

2

4

5

6

7

Subject

Major Head number

Title in the Budget document

Panchayat Window

Budgetary allocation done to the PRIs (percentage)

Agriculture including Agricultural extension

2401

Crop husbandry

Yes

2.32%

Land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation and soil conservation.

2402

Soil and Water conservation

Yes

0.28%

Poverty alleviation and Rural Housing

2501

Special  programmes for Rural development

Yes

91.91%

Minor irrigation, water management and watershed development

2702

Minor irrigation

No

Sl. No.

1 2

3

3

4.1 Animal husbandry, dairying and poultry

 

2403

Animal

Yes

No Allocation

husbandry

32

 

4.2

2404

Dairy Development Fisheries

Yes

5

Fisheries

2405

6

Social forestry and farm forestry

2406

Forestry and wildlife

 No

Minor forest produce

2406

Forestry and wildlife

 No

Small scale industries

2851

Village and small scale industries

Yes

2851/105

Khadi, Village and cottage industries

 No

2215

Water supply and Sanitation

 No

7 8 9

No Allocation

No

0.03%

11

Drinking water

12

 Not traced

Fuel and fodder

13

14 15

Roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other means of communication

3054

Roads and Bridges

No

Rural electrification

2801

Electricity

No

Non conventional energy

2810

17

2202/01 Education

18

19

 Non conventional energy Elementary Education

 No Yes

2.46%

2202/02

Secondary Education

Yes

0.09%

Technical training and vocational education

2203

Technical Training

Yes

No Allocation

Adult non formal education

2202/04

Adult Education

No

Libraries

2205/105

Public Libraries

No

Cultural Activities

2205/102

Promotion of Arts & Culture

 No

20 21

22 23

 

 Not traced

Markets and fairs Health and sanitation, including hospitals, primary health centres and dispensaries

2210

Medical and Public Health

Yes

0.28%

33

 

24 Family welfare 25

2211

Family welfare

No

2235

Social security and Welfare

Yes

37.39%

Yes

4.71%

 No

Women and Child Development

26

Social Welfare, including welfare of the handicapped and mentally retarded

27

Welfare of the weaker sections and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

2225

Welfare of SCs,STs and other backward classes

Public distribution system

3456

Included under Civil supplies

28 29

Maintenance of community assets

 Not traced

Source: State Budget of Kerala, 2008-09, Govt. of Kerala.

2.4 Field Observations and Key Findings 

In Kerala given the nature of decentralization, the bottlenecks in the fund flow and execution of plan are mostly second generation in nature compared to the other parts of the country, as institutional reforms have mostly smoothened the problems in the operation of Panchayats. The Kerala State Government devolves around one-third of its  plan outlay to the Panchayats from the state budget and the funds devolved are all routed through state treasury from where Panchayats draw their requisite funds through the bill system. Therefore there is no system of giving advances for undertaking expenditures which deals with the problem of misappropriation of funds at the Panchayat level. Although the field investigation team on several account encountered allegations of corruption by Panchayat functionaries but such allegations were difficult to establish from the financial statements of the Panchayats. A major lacunae in the accounting and audit practices in Kerala is that none of local  bodies had their accounts up to date and audit of the annual financial statements by the Local Fund Audit Department (LFAD) have not been conducted for the last three or four years. Therefore the data obtained by the study team from the Panchayats at all levels were not audited statements. The huge gaps in conducting of audits are largely attributed to delay in preparation of the financial statements by the local bodies, however Panchayat

 

34

 

functionaries counter-allege that it is the under-staffed LFAD that is responsible for the delay. A major issue that cropped up during the field study is that while all the Gram Panchayats had uniform and detailed formats for budget and annual financial statements with  provision for reporting up to minor heads of account, Block Panchayats and District Panchayats do not have uniform and comparable formats, therefore comparative data could not be obtained. Another major issue that has been repeatedly commented on by the Grama Panchayat functionaries is that, given the detailed and cumbersome nature of the budget documents and the annual financial statements, the staffs at the G.P.s may lack the budget literacy required to fill up these documents in a correct manner. Moreover, some elected representatives of the G.P.s also commented that the benchmark for sanctioned staff strength of the Panchayats is archaic and there is a need for reassessment of required strength of staff for the Panchayats at each tier, given that there has been a considerable rise in population density of each Panchayat and the horizontal spread of activities by the Panchayats have also increased. Therefore there is an urgent need for increasing the staff strength of the Panchayats or provisions may be made for outsourcing certain activities of the Panchayats. There seems to be also a clear need for recruitment of qualified accounts manager for the Panchayats (particularly the G.P.s) given the quantum of funds these local bodies handle and the complexities surrounding the different heads of receipts and disbursements. There is also a significant disjunction between the formulation of the plan, the budget by the Panchayats and the fund disbursal to the Panchayats by the state government. The annual budget for the Panchayats are to presented before the elected representatives of the Panchayat and the Gram Sabha by end of March of every financial year, however drafting of the annual plan begins only in May of every financial year with the constitution of Working Groups and as per government guideline should be finished by end of the month of August with the Annual Plan being widely publicized. In all  practicality, however, the duration of plan finalization is often stretched till the month of  November. Therefore the Panchayats only get the last quarter of the financial year to implement the projects approved in the plan. On the front of fund disbursal from the state government however, the Panchayats receive their grants in ten equal installments

 

35

 

starting in the month of May every financial year. Therefore till the finalization of the annual plan most of the grant to the Panchayats lie unutilized as the local bodies by rule cannot incur expenditure on items not part of annual plan or budget. Moreover, the Panchayats are required to spend at least 70 per cent of the developmental and other grant received from the state government within the financial year failing which they are subjected to a budget cut by the amount of shortfall in utilization in the following year. Consequently the delay in plan formulation and the norms governing utilization in conjunction impact the quality of projects undertaken by the Panchayats, many of which are reported to be small and wasteful. Evidently, given this procedural bottlenecks, Panchayats lack the capacity to invest in large projects entailing creation of durable  public asset. There also seems to be a perpetual problem of spillover projects in every financial year which allows the Panchayats to bypass technical vetting by the Technical Advisory Groups and the DPC. The overall process has effectively rendered the annual  budget document docum ent redundant as it does not reflect the expenditure ex penditure pattern of the financial year for which the budget is drawn. It has also been commented on by the TSFC that  budgets drawn up by the Panchayats are impractical, and there is a tendency to over budget than the Panchayats Panch ayats can actually spend. For the eight GPs visited, the study team found wide variance between actual estimates and budget estimates of corresponding years as has been discussed in subsequent sections. Despite the fact that, institutional parameters for better functioning of Panchayats have  been put in place in Kerala, there is a need ne ed for restructuring of the procedural proced ural issues and enhancement of administrative capacity of the Panchayats for their better functioning. There is also significant scope for improvement in the information management systems of local bodies, particularly the Panchayats are yet to reap the benefits of development in information technology. The State Government in its Action Taken Report (ATR) on the TSFC recommendations, commented that expansion in staff strength or creation of additional posts would be difficult, and thereby a computer based system of accounting would be introduced and staff would be trained to handle computer based information systems. Introduction of computerized system of administration, certainly, would release some staff for redeployment, but with expanding activities of Panchayats particularly in

 

36

 

the realm of development, there is a need for strengthening of administrative structure of Panchayats.

2.5 An Assessment of the Finances of Panchayati Pancha yati Raj Institutions

The keystone of decentralization in Kerala is the Grama Panchayats, which in accordance to its mandate raises revenue from different tax sources assigned to it and undertakes developmental expenditures as well as maintenance of existing public services that it  provides to its citizens. Accordingly bulk of the funds devolved from the State Budget (both Plan and Non-plan) is given to the Grama Panchayats for their dispensation. On the other hand Block Panchayats and District Panchayats have very little or no resources on their on to mobilize. Inevitably, these institutions are largely dependent on transfers from the State Government and the Central Government. The Block Panchayats play a crucial role in implementation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, while District Panchayats are largely responsible for services related to health, education and infrastructural development at the district level. In the following sections we will review the finances of the different tiers of Panchayats with greater emphasis on the financial performance of GPs. Analysis of the Finance of the Gram Panchayats (G.P.)

Owing to the fact that the Grama Panchayats in Kerala are quite large in terms of  population density and also economic activity, the revenue base of these local bodies are significantly large and so is the revenue potential of the taxes assigned to the GPs. The study team visited eight GPs in Kerala in two district districtss of Ernakulam and Mallapuram. Mallapuram. Out of these eight GPs, four GPs were economically developed and four were economically backward. It was observed that for the four backward GPs, the own revenue mobilization (tax and non-tax) varied from 5 to 10 per cent of the total revenue receipts of the GPs. While for the economically developed GPs the own revenue mobilization ranged from 15 to 25 percent of the total revenue receipt. While the Third State Finance Commission puts the range of average own revenue mobilization much higher for GPs, it had also noted that, the GPs mobilize much less resources than they are capable and have a lax approach in tax collection. The study team could not obtain

 

37

 

statements showing demand for revenue, its actual collection and the arrears, which could  provide a glimpse towards the efficacy of tax administration of the GPs. However, it is of the opinion that such a statement should form a part of the annual budget for the Panchayats for better transparency in the operation of Panchayats. Nevertheless, the resource position of the GPs in Kerala is much more heartening than their counterparts in other parts of the country. It is worthwhile to note that GPs finance a significant part of their total expenditure out of own revenue, which for developed GPs like Nilambur,  Njarakkal, Pallipuram and Alamkode can c an range from 20 to 30 3 0 percent and for backward GPs hover around 10 percent. The major portion of the revenue receipts of the GPs are constituted by grants from the State Government, which apart from the one-third plan allocation from annual plan of the State, consists of a general purpose grant for maintaining the traditional functions of the Panchayats, a maintenance grant composed of both road maintenance and non-road maintenance grants, and a development grant to promote decentralized planning. Together, these transfers from the State Government form the major portion of revenue receipts of the GP budget. For most of the GPs, the share of grants from the State Government range from 70 to 80 percent. However, for economically developed GP like  Nilambur it can range from 50 to 60 percent of their total revenue receipt while for  backward GPs it can be as high as 90 percent of the total revenue receipts. Central Government transfers to GPs form a miniscule portion of their revenue receipts. Central Government transfers to GPs are generally composed of non-plan grants awarded  by the Central Finance Commission, and Centrally Sponsored Schemes such su ch as National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS), Total Sanitation Campaign, Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY) and Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana (SGRY). SGRY, however, has been subsumed under NREGP and the period for which data has been collected in Kerala, NREGP had not been initiated in surveyed districts. Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSSs), in Kerala, are administered through a nodal agency under the district administration called Poverty Alleviation Unit (PAU), which disburses funds to the different tiers of Panchayats and also serves as a monitoring mechanism for the  programmes implemented. The role of the GPs in implementation of CSSs is primarily limited to selection of beneficiaries and execution of plan and they exercise little control

 

38

 

over financial management of the schemes. Nevertheless, the scant presence of CSSs in the finances of GPs is a boon rather than bane given that overbearing dependence on CSSs by the GPs in other States (like in Rajasthan) have transformed these local bodies into mere developmental agencies rather than an institution of local self government. [See  Appendix 1 for tables on Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Ag gregate Expenditure of GPs]  

A Review of Expenditure Pattern of GPs

The expenditure pattern of GPs is broadly classified into non-developmental expenditure and developmental expenditure as per the heads on which expenditure is incurred. Nondevelopmental expenditure by the GPs constitute around 15 to 30 percent of the total expenditure while some GPs like Pallipuram and Nilambur have seen significant rise on the account of “Other Village Development Programme” which is composed of heads of expenditure like honorarium for elected members of Panchayats, salaries of Panchayat functionaries, administrative costs, expenditure on different Panchayat services. In developmental expenditure, major component of expenditure across all GPs is infrastructural development (constituted primarily by road construction and maintenance, watershed development etc.), followed by social security and housing. It has been  perceived from field observations and perceptions received from functionaries that GPs in general engage in developmental activity which are more visible and beneficiary oriented given their proximity to their electorates. A major component of developmental expenditure for some GPs like Kootampuzha, Perumpadappa is expenditure on agriculture and allied services owing to large farming communities residing in these areas. Despite the proclivity towards beneficiary driven development programmes, a significantly large portion of expenditure in most of GPs is devoted to the productive sectors comprised by agriculture, village industries and allied services. One major reason for this phenomenon may be the fact that State Government earmarks 40 percent of plan allocation to LSGI for the productive sector. Additionally, the State Government also earmarks, specific percentages of the plan allocation for different other sectors like for infrastructure development (20 percent), housing (15 percent). For services sector the State Government does not stipulate any floor or ceiling on the amount to be earmarked from the plan allocation for GPs and the GPs are free to spend any amount after setting

 

39

 

aside the mandatory requirements. It is to be noted that expenditure of the GPs in services sectors like health and education constitute a significantly smaller portion of their expenditure budget. Therefore, it may be worthwhile to explore earmarking specific  percentage of plan allocation to GPs rather than making it residual. However, a necessary caveat that needs to be exercised is that, a significant amount of expenditure on health and education at local level, is incurred at the block level and district level. Moreover, the GPs are also required to contribute to the Annual Work Plan & Budget (AWP&B) of SSA for the block. An important aspect that needs to be highlighted is the expenditure pattern of GPs on the marginalized sections of the society. It is observed that there is lot o off variations across the GPs in expenditure on marginalized groups belonging to the SC, ST and OBC community, the highest being reported for Kootampuzha (15.52 percent of Total Expenditure) followed by Amarambalam (14.47 percent) while being the lowest being reported for Alamkode (0.63 percent). The variation can be attributed largely to variability in the population of SC, ST & OBC across the Grama Panchayats. However, the variation among the GPs are still quite large and another major reason for such variation is that there is no effective floor for expenditure on SCP or TSP only ceiling rates of 20 percent and 25 percent of allocation apply for SCP and TSP respectively in case of infrastructural development. In case of expenditure on Women’s Component however the variations among the GPs are not large and generally vary within the range of 1.7 to 2.75 percent of total expenditure, with the exception of Alamkode at 3.84  percent and Amarambalam at 1.32 percent. A major reason for such low variation may be guidelines by the State Government which prescribes a minimum expenditure of 10  percent of the plan allocation on Women’s Component. [See Appendix 2 for tables on expenditure of GPs]  

Table2.2: Expenditure Expenditure on Weaker Sections by the Selected Grama Panchayats for 2006-07

(Rs in Lakhs)

Perumpadappa

 

Total Expenditure

SC/ST/OBC Component

1 137.85

2 3.61

Col. 2 as percent of Col. 1

3 2.62

Womens Component

4 3.17

Col. 4 as percent of Col. 1

5 2.30

40

 

Alamkode Nilambur Amarambalam Njarakkal Pallipuram Nellikushi Kootampuzha

162.60 250.03 253.07 159.71 269.10 174.23 253.14

1.02 8.68 36.63 12.31 11.25 14.58 39.29

0.63 3.47 14.47 7.71 4.18 8.37 15.52

6.25 6.89 3.33 2.86 7.05 3.41 4.88

3.84 2.75 1.32 1.79 2.62 1.96 1.93

Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

Given that the GPs play an important role in local area development, the role of planning and budget formulation can be hardly understated. However, as also mentioned in the Third State Finance Commission report, the budget formulation process of the GPs are often far from reality. The study team compared the budget estimates for the year 200607 as put forward by the GPs in their Annual Budget statements with the actual figures as reported in the corresponding Annual Financial statements and found them to be varying widely. For GPs Pallipuram and Amarambalam, it was found that there was gross under budgeting across all the heads while for all other GPs it was found that there was a general tendency towards over-budgeting. This essentially means that, most of the GPs fail to achieve their projected expenditure commitments and on tax front, fall short of raising their estimated revenue demand within the financial year. This phenomenon seems prevalent despite the fact that the Panchayats have a proper estimate of their fund  position given that share of each Panchayat in the devolution by the State Government is stated in the State Budget for the relevant year and quantum of plan grants are also announced with the State Budget. Given that the State Government maintains considerable transparency in its transfers to the local bodies and grants from State Government form the bulk of the finances for the GPs, deviations between the budget estimates and actual figures should be minimal. A major reason for this phenomenon can  be disconnect between the annual planning process and the bud budget get formulation process as stated earlier. Unless the planning process for a given year interlocks with budget formulation by the GP for the same financial year, transparency and accountability of the operations of GPs would be difficult to ensure. [See Appendix 3 for data tables]  

An Assessment of the Receipts and Expenditure of Block Panchayats and District Panchayats

 

41

 

The data obtained from the Block Panchayats and District Panchayats has considerable limitations. Firstly, the Annual Budget statements and the Annual Financial statements obtained were not in comparable formats neither among the Block Panchayats nor among the two District Panchayats surveyed. Secondly, the data obtained were not for comparable and continuous years, therefore the tables provided in Appendix A4, for Block Panchayats are only for financial year 2006-07, while for District Panchayats figures for fiscal years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are being reported. Table 2.3: Composition of Revenue and Unspent Balance of Block Panchayats for 2006-07

(in Percent) Block

Receipts from

Receipts from State

Other Sources

Unspent

Panchayats

CSSs as

Government as

(including non-

Balance as

percent of

percent of Total

tax revenue)

percent of

Total Receipts

Receipt

Total Receipts

Vypin

22.0

66.2

11.8

23.0

Kothamangalam

13.0

83.6

3.4

31.2

Nilambur

38.4

58.8

3.2

17.2

Perumpadappa

30.6

59.8

9.6

21.5

Source of data: Documents collected from BPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets

The major sources of finance for the Block Panchayats are the grants from the State Government pertaining to Establishment/General Purpose Grants, Maintenance Grants, Development Grants and Plan Fund. The quantum of grants expressed as percent of total revenue receipts for Block Panchayats vary from around 60 percent (for Nilambur and Perumpadappa) to 83.6 percent (for Kothamangalam). It is noteworthy that for both  Nilambur and Perumpadappa belong to Mallapuram District (which was selected as a  backward district) the share of transfers from the State Government in the revenue receipts is almost same while Nilambur is a developed Block and Perumpadappa is  backward. In case of Centrally Sponsored Schemes also, the share of funds for these schemes in the total revenue receipts is more for Nilambur than Perumpadappa. Similarly, Kothamangalam despite being a developed block compared to Vypin, has 83  percent of its revenue receipts coming from State transfers while Vypin has only 66  percent. It is admissible that from such a skeleton review of just four Block Panchayats, P anchayats,

 

42

 

generalized comments on progressivity of transfers from the State Government cannot be made but the above table can be indicative and further studies need to be undertaken to assess the progressivity of fund transfers from the State Government to the Local Bodies. The Block Panchayats also seem to have substantial unspent balance at the end of the financial year, which may be indicative of low absorptive capacity and also lack of effective planning of activities, both of which deserves much more detailed assessments. It is worthwhile a mention that elected members of Block Panchayats visited, had unanimously put forth that they find it increasingly difficult to find a relevance for the Block Panchayats in the overall scheme of decentralization in Kerala. Given the paucity of data obtained from District Panchayats and the unevenness in the formats in which the receipts and expenditure were reported, the study team could not engage into a meaningful analysis of the finances of the District Panchayats, although this tier of Panchayat commands significant share of resources transferred from State Government and plays a crucial role in overall development of the district. However a rough comparison can be attempted in terms of utilization of funds by the two District Panchayats. The District Panchayat of Ernakulam demonstrates a low utilization of resources as for both the years reported (2006-07 and 2007-08), the annual expenditure of the District Panchayat being less than half of its total available funds, while Mallapuram has shown considerably better utilization. [See Appendix 4 for financial tables]  

2.6 Concluding Observations

In order to assess the extent of decentralization in Kerala vis-à-vis other States in the country, one needs to go beyond the institutional aspects of fiscal autonomy for Panchayats and mechanisms of devolution across the three benchmarks of funds, functions and functionaries. The model of decentralization put in place in Kerala has been widely praised and well reported in the relevant literature. Therefore the emphasis of this study, particularly in Kerala, has been to look into the processes that this model entailed and how it affects the performance of the Panchayats in general and Grama Panchayats in  particular. A major achievement of decentralization in Kerala, is that there is little vertical integration in the administration Panchayats as each tier of Panchayat functions

 

43

 

autonomously of each other. The point of integration exists in the process of preparation of annual plan for each Panchayat so that there is no overlap of jurisdiction and duplication of activities and this is achieved through technical vetting of annual plans at the block level and also at the district level and final approval being given by the District Planning Committee. However, for each level of Panchayat there exists considerable disjunction between their annual planning and annual budgeting exercise. Given the fact that Panchayats prepare their annual budget subsequent to the declaration of the State Budget and start the process of planning based on the available budget, the such a disjunction should not have taken place. However, the planning process itself is quite elaborate and takes substantial time and effort, which means the actual implementation of the plan starts quite late in the financial year. Hence there was found a significant divergence between the budget estimates of the Panchayats and their actual estimates for corresponding years. In terms of financial performance of the Panchayats, there is still enormous scope for improvements. While all the Grama Panchayats follow a uniform format of Budgets and Annual Financial Statements, the District and the Block Panchayats have not adopted such practice. Moreover, for all the Panchayats there was an immense backlog of financial audit of their fund management and performance. On the front of resource mobilization by the Panchayats, while the Grama Panchayats have considerable powers of raising revenue through taxes, the District and the Block Panchayats largely rely on certain user charges and mostly on transfer of resources from the State Government. Therefore, there is little scope for additional resource mobilization for DPs or BPs, but there is scope for considerable additional resources for GPs through  better tax collection and reforms in tax rates. In case of expenditure management of Panchayats, there exists clear demarcation of expenditure responsibilities and thereby priorities for each level of Panchayat. Grama Panchayats are largely responsible for local area development and welfare of weaker sections of the society; Block Panchayats are largely entrusted with execution of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, road maintenance, maintenance of health services among others. District Panchayats are mostly responsible for provision of district level social services and development expenditures that are inter-jurisdictional in nature and cannot

 

44

 

 be undertaken at a lower level. Overall it can be b e concluded that, Panchayats Panch ayats in Kerala has  been successfully institutionalized as structures of governance and development through the institutional reforms initiated during the People’s Plan Campaign. However, with  broadening of functions of Panchayats there is required urgent procedural reforms and review of human resources to be devoted to Panchayats, to enable these institutions to  perform better instilling better transparency and accountability. Appendix A1: Table A1.1: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Pallipuram Pallipuram

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

22042432

24423270

25257107

Total Own Revenue

4431901.7

4106343.3

5506183

Tax

2360701 10.7

2371237.2 9.7

3510340 13.9

2071200.7

1735106.1

1995843

9.4

7.1

7.9

17610530

20316927

19750924

1306515

1576273

869772

5.9

6.5

3.4

16304015

18740654

18881152

74

76.7

74.8

Expenditure

19946371

21336453

26910224

Revenue

16141119

18165567

22798972

80.9

85.1

84.7

3805252

3170886

4111252

19.1

14.9

15.3

Total Revenue

 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt. Total

Capital

Own Revenue as percentage 22.22 19.25 20.46 of Total Expenditure Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total .

 

45

 

Table A1.2: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Njarakkal

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

11565651

14089719

16134759

Total Own Revenue

2963687 25.62

3224423 22.88

3465490 21.48

Tax

1874234

1954915

2041022

16.2

13.9

12.6

1089453

1269508

1424468

9.4

9

8.8

8601964

10865296

12669269

2615322

1282628

774231

22.6

9.1

4.8

5986642

9582668

11895038

51.8

68.0

73.7

Expenditure

10206268

11645191

15971428

Revenue

9660812

10163842

15443593

94.7

87.3

96.7

545456

1481349

527835

5.3

12.7

3.3

29.04

27.69

21.70

Total Revenue

 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt. Total

Capital Own Revenue as percentage of Total Expenditure

Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . 

Table A1.3: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Kootampuzha Kootampuzha

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

26661295

28652699

29079025

Total Own Revenue

1235078

1217738

1275045

4.63

4.25

4.38

879065 3.3

839500 2.9

893083 3.1

Total Revenue

Tax

 

46

 

 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges)

356013

378238.2

381962

1.3

1.3

1.3

25426217

27434961

27803980

1982889

3436617

1582661

7.4

12

5.4

23443328

23998344

26221319

87.9

83.8

90.2

Expenditure

20158286

27210204

25314205

Revenue

18792479

19895534

16633470

93.2

73.1

65.7

1365807

7314670

8680735

6.8

26.9

34.3

6.13

4.48

5.04

Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt. Total

Capital Own Revenue as percentage of Total Expenditure

Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. 

Table A1.4: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Nellikushi Nellikushi

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

16194562

13766971

18779920

Total Own Revenue

1553522

1580330

1910996

Tax

9.59 1047026

11.48 1268666

10.18 1536004

6.5

9.2

8.2

506496.4

311664

374992

3.1

2.3

2

14641040

12186641

16868924

1311433

1352884

2388494

8.1

9.8

12.7

13329607

10833757

14480430

Total Revenue

 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt.

 

47

 

82.3

78.7

77.1

Expenditure

14201178

16347133

17422579

Revenue

11525013

13611081

15231938

81.2

83.3

87.4

2676165

2736052

2190641

18.8

16.7

12.6

10.94

9.67

10.97

Total

Capital Own Revenue as percentage of Total Expenditure

Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . 

Table A1.5: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Nilambur

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

24584071

25125386

11381937

Total Own Revenue

7628088 31.03

7517773 29.92

5060495 44.46

Tax

4864384

5038860

3534833

19.8

20.1

31.1

2763703.7

2478913.1

1525661.5

11.2

9.9

13.4

16955983

17607613

6321443

1529008

924080

786580

6.2

3.7

6.9

15426975

16683533

5534863

62.8

66.4

48.6

Expenditure

29868571

26832881

25002610

Revenue

24558175

25563171

23694435

82.2

95.3

94.8

5310396

1269710

1308175

17.8

4.7

5.2

25.54

28.02

20.24

Total Revenue

 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt. Total

Capital Own Revenue as percentage of Total Expenditure

Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . 

 

48

 

Table A1.6: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Amarambalam Amarambalam

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

14762475

18967520

25602209

Total Own Revenue

1486335 10.07

1469424 7.75

1957627 7.65

Tax

1312583

1083086

1515415

8.9

5.7

5.9

173752

386338

442212

1.2

2

1.7

13276140

17498096

23644582

2033041

1490580

2223249

13.8

7.9

8.7

11243099

16007516

21421333

76.2

84.4

83.7

Expenditure

17429721

14830001

25306934

Revenue

14170822

6250100

19035535

81.3

42.1

75.2

3258899

8579901

6271399

18.7

57.9

24.8

8.53

9.91

7.74

Total Revenue

 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt. Total

Capital Own Revenue as percentage of Total Expenditure

Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . 

Table A1.7: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Perumbadappa Perumbadappa

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

8567342

12315325

13439290

Total Own Revenue

991445.2

1517525

476490

11.57

12.32

3.55

Tax

850480.1

1361773.3

145376

 Non Tax

9.9 140965.1

11.1 155752.05

1.1 331114

Total Revenue

 

49

 

(Incl. User Charges) 1.6

1.3

2.5

7575897

10797800

12962800

831757 9.7

1061617 8.6

1301199 9.7

6744140

9736183

11661601

78.7

79.1

86.8

Expenditure

8288855

9999330

13785211

Revenue

7317743

7366512

12340854

88.3

73.7

89.5

971112

2632818

1444357

11.7

26.3

10.5

11.96

15.18

3.46

Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt. Total

Capital Own Revenue as percentage of Total Expenditure

Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . 

Table A1.8: Revenue Receipts and Aggregate Expenditure Expenditure of G.P.: Alamkode

(In Rupees) 2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Receipts

15251555

10387254

18165609

Total Own Revenue

2964076

2845942

3056527

Tax

19.43 1340016

27.40 1291661

16.83 1603917

8.8

12.4

8.8

1624060

1554281

1452610

10.6

15

8

12287479

7541312

15109082

480793.8

176208

475000

3.2

1.7

2.6

11806685

7365104

14634082

Total Revenue

 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) Total Grant-in-Aid of which

Transfer from Central Govt. Transfer from State Govt.

 

50

 

77.4

70.9

80.6

Expenditure

12759664

8023236

16260401

Revenue

10057833

6006602

9803475

78.8

74.9

60.3

2701831

2016634

6456926

Total

Capital

21.2 25.1 39.7 Own Revenue as percentage of 23.23 35.47 18.80 Total Expenditure Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.    Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . 

Appendix A2: Expenditure Patterns of the Grama Panchayats Table A2.1: Expenditure Pattern of Pallipuram Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) Total Expenditure Non-Developmental Expenditures of which 

2004-05 19946371.35 3100710.85 (15.55)

2005-06 21336453 3939128 (18.46)

2006-07 26910224 12055389 (44.80)

48648.95 373584 3589017 (0.24) (1.75) (13.34) 0.24)   1.75)   13.34)   210414 380267 256770 (1.05) (1.78) (0.95) 1.05)   1.78)   0.95)   Pension and other service retirement Concessions 2841647.9 3185277 8209602 (14.25) (14.93) (30.51) 14.25)   14.93)   30.51)   Other village development programme 16845661 17397325 14854835 Developmental Expenditures of which  (84.45) (81.54) (55.20) 5423702.5 4767737 3197202 (27.19) (22.35) (11.88) 27.19)   22.35)   11.88)   Infrastructure Development 3535194 3123505 3772578 (   (   (14.02) 17.72)  17.72) 14.64)  14.64) 14.02)   Social Security & Welfare 913205 93635 (4.58) (0.44) NA 4.58)   0.44)   Family welfare 535400 897831 252994.00 (2.68) (4.21) (0.94) Education, art & culture and sports & youth services 2.68)   4.21)   0.94)   770329 1336721 2148816 (3.86) (6.26) (7.99) 3.86)   6.26)   7.99)   Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation 775400 813221 1445203 (3.89) (3.81) (5.37) 3.89)   3.81)   5.37)   Labour & employment 2431753 1807157 705500 (   (   (2.62) 12.19)  12.19) 8.47)  8.47) 2.62)   Housing 1000 675000 (0.01) (3.16) NA 0.01)   3.16)   Industry 792479 1510035 1132484 (3.97) (7.08) (4.21) 3.97)   7.08)   4.21)   Agriculture & allied services 801681 1178252 952483 (4.02) (5.52) (3.54) 4.02)   5.52)   3.54)   Special programmes for rural development 865517 1194231 1247575 (4.34) (5.60) (4.64) 4.34)   5.60)   4.64)   Others Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . Public works

 

51

 

Table A2.2: Expenditure Pattern of Kootampuzha Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) Total Expenditure Non-Developmental Expenditures of which  Public works Pension and other service retirement Concessions Other village development programme Developmental Expenditures of which  Infrastructure Development Social Security & Welfare Family welfare Education, art & culture and sports & youth services Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation Labour & employment Housing

2004-05 20158286 4146940 (20.57) 1735605

2005-06 27210204 3701025 (13.60) 1163845

2006-07 25314205 3058054 (12.08) 913190

(8.61) 8.61)   87159 (0.43) 0.43)   2324176 16011346 (79.43) 9303199 (46.15) 46.15)   1325887 (6.58) 6.58)   534000 (2.65) 2.65)   81908 (0.41) 0.41)   2853698

(4.28) 4.28)   89966 (0.33) 0.33)   2447214 23509179 (86.40) 6781739 (24.92) 24.92)   6007538 (22.08) 22.08)   56100 (0.21) 0.21)   916265 (3.37) 3.37)   1528691

(3.61) 3.61)   189222 (0.75) 0.75)   1955642 22256151 (87.92) 4848938 (19.16) 19.16)   6827378 (26.97) 26.97)  

(14.16) 14.16)   505959 (2.51) 2.51)   29250 (0.15) 0.15)  

(5.62) 5.62)   840781 (3.09) 3.09)   3187556 (11.71) 11.71)  

(3.11) 3.11)   954718 (3.77) 3.77)   3694100 (14.59) 14.59)   36265 (0.14) 0.14)   3534647 (13.96) 13.96)  

NA 3118604 (11.46) 11.46)   Agriculture & allied services 66989  NA (0.25) NA 0.25)   Special programmes for rural development 729925 1004916 421101 (3.62) (3.69) (1.66) 3.62)   3.69)   1.66)   Others Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total .  Industry

 

 NA 647520 (3.21) 3.21)  

NA 1152255 (4.55) 4.55)   786749

52

 

Table A2.3: Expenditure Pattern of Perumpadappa Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) Total Expenditure Non-Developmental Expenditures of which  Public works Pension and other service retirement Conccessions Other village development programme Developmental Expenditures of which  Infrastructure Development Social Security & Welfare Family welfare Education, art & culture and sports & youth services

2004-05 8288855 1597354 (19.27)  NA 178498 (2.15) 2.15)   1418856 6691501 (80.73) 1154735 (13.93) 13.93)   1777131 (21.44) 21.44)   50 (0.01) 0.01)   55883 (0.67) 0.67)  

223011 (2.23) 2.23)   916888 (9.17) 9.17)   Labour & employment 715750 (7.16) 7.16)   Housing NA Industry 1744576 (17.45) 17.45)   Agriculture & allied services 19964  NA (0.20) 0.20)   Special programmes for rural development 97678 181093 (1.18) (1.81) 1.18)   1.81)   Others Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation

 

123093 (1.49) 1.49)   899652 (10.85) 10.85)   934500 (11.27) 11.27)    NA 1648779 (19.89) 19.89)  

2005-06 9999330 1779398 (17.80) 168486 (1.68) 1.68)   136016 (1.36) 1.36)   1474896 8219932 (82.20) 2292942 (22.93) 22.93)   1629680 (16.30) 16.30)   25 (0.01) 0.01)   496003 (4.96) 4.96)  

2006-07 13785211 3799667 (27.56) 737082 (5.35) 5.35)   316871 (2.30) 2.30)   2745714 9985544 (72.44) 1800977 (13.06) 13.06)   1829064 (13.27) 50 (0.01) 0.01)   667408 (4.84) 4.84)   689830 (5.00) 5.00)   1794372 (13.02) 13.02)   772250 5.60)   5.60) NA 2289761 (16.61) 16.61)   NA 141832 (1.03) 1.03)  

53

 

Table A2.4: Expenditure Pattern of Amarambalam Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) Total Expenditure Non-Developmental Non-Developm ental Expenditures of which  Public works Pension and other service retirement Conccessions Other village development programme Developmental Expenditures of which  Infrastructure Development Social Security & Welfare

2004-05 17429721 2677297 (15.36) 728547

2005-06 14830001 3746217 (25.26) 1630561

2006-07 25306934 4019058 (15.88) 135005

(4.18) 4.18)   74831 (0.43) 0.43)   1873919 14752424 (84.64) 7743071 (44.42) 44.42)   2838480 (16.29) 16.29)  

(11.00) 11.00)   225375 (1.52) 1.52)   1890281 11083784 (74.74) 7237413 (48.80) 48.80)   1096543 (7.39) 7.39)   7500 (0.05) 0.05)   317588 (2.14) 2.14)   14945 (0.10) 0.10)   2160540 (14.57) 14.57)  

(0.53) 0.53)   236161 (0.93) 0.93)   3647892 21287876 (84.12) 5231610 (20.67) 20.67)   6254664 (24.72) 24.72)  

 NA 115312 (0.66) 0.66)   Education, art & culture and sports & youth services 331434 (1.90) Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation 1.90)   2227518 (12.78) 12.78)   Labour & employment 761000 (4.37) NA 4.37)   Housing  NA NA Industry 617852 40217 (3.54) (0.27) 3.54)   0.27)   Agriculture & allied services 1467  NA Special programmes for rural development (0.01) 116290 209038 (0.67) (1.41) 0.67)   1.41)   Others Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total .

NA 1074295 (4.25) 4.25)   623306 (2.46) 2.46)   3090396 (12.21) 12.21)   2603600 (10.29) 10.29)   NA 2308542 (9.12) 9.12)  

 

54

Family welfare

NA 101463 (0.40) 0.40)  

 

Table A2.5: Expenditure Pattern of Alamkode Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) Total Expenditure Non-Developmental Expenditures of which 

2004-05 12759664 3323279 (26.05) 339622

2005-06 8023236 1727846 (21.54) 96183

(2.66) (1.20) 2.66)   1.20)   108557 63020 (0.85) (0.79) 0.85)   0.79)   Pension and other service retirement Concessions 2875100 1568643 Other village development programme 9436385 6295390 Developmental Expenditures of which  (73.95) (78.46) 2412731 1801197 (18.91) (22.45) 18.91)   22.45)   Infrastructure Development 2874897 1742492 (22.53) (21.72) 22.53)   21.72)   Social Security & Welfare 295357 93240 (2.31) (1.16) 2.31)   1.16)   Family welfare 192370 457317 (   (5.70) 1.51)  1.51) 5.70)   Education, art & culture and sports & youth services 420187 213428 (3.29) (2.66) Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation 3.29)   2.66)   1104030 1030677 (8.65) (12.85) 8.65)   12.85)   Labour & employment 852000 425000 (6.68) (5.30) 6.68)   5.30)   Housing  NA NA Industry 1085357 318151 (8.51) (3.97) 8.51)   3.97)   Agriculture & allied services  NA NA Special programmes for rural development 199456 213888 (1.56) (2.67) 1.56)   2.67)   Others Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . Public works

 

2006-07 16260401 6384602 (39.26) 3776630 (23.23) 23.23)   165724 (1.02) 1.02)   2442248 9875799 (60.74) 2160858 (13.29) 13.29)   2004223 (12.33) 12.33)   NA 411577 (2.53) 2.53)   686061 (4.22) 4.22)   1097346 (6.75) 6.75)   1739250 (10.70) 10.70)   NA 1364928 (8.39) 8.39)   NA 411556 (2.53) 2.53)  

55

 

Table A2.6: Expenditure Pattern of Nilambur Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) Total Expenditure

2004-05 29868571

2005-06 26832881

2006-07 25002610

Non-Developmental Expenditures of which 

8201125 (27.46)

4328910 (16.13)

4866544 (19.46)

Public works

947798 (3.17)

526472 (1.96)

565541 (2.26)

Pension and other service retirement Concessions

262005

257321

257321

Other village development programme

(0.88) 6991322

(0.96) 3545117

(1.03) 4043682

21667446 (72.54) 10851395 (36.33) 2514362

22503971 (83.87) 11947163 (44.52) 2806405

20136066 (80.54) 9702909 (38.81) 3182094

(8.42)

(10.46)

(12.73)

1500 (0.01) 226294 (0.76) 686680 (2.30) 1384493 (4.64) 3947658 (13.22)  NA

NA

299925 (1.2) 329410 (1.32) 99734 (0.40) 1769386 (7.08) 1462230 (5.85) 360000

Developmental Expenditures of which  Infrastructure Development Social Security & Welfare Family welfare Education, art & culture and sports & youth services Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation Labour & employment Housing Industry Agriculture & allied services

1220417

344402 (1.28) 104537 (0.39) 1807963 (6.74) 1462230 (5.45) 360000 360001 1923062

1.44 1923422

(7.17) (7.69) 1072291 856015 (4.00) 833897 675918 150941 Others (2.79) (2.52) (0.60) Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total .  Special programmes for rural development

 

(4.09) 750

56

 

Table A2.7: Expenditure Pattern of Njarakkal Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) 2004-05 10206268

2005-06 11645191

2006-07 15971428

2189154 21.45 1143002 11.20

4110964 35.30 1390651 11.94

3597225 22.52 2262278 14.16

Pension and other service retirement Conccessions

229885

NA

365252

Other village development programme

2.25 816267

 NA 2720313

2.29 969695

Infrastructure Development

8017114 78.55 1225892

7534227 64.70 1344849

12374203 77.48 1542551

Social Security & Welfare

12.01 2493433

11.55 2106430

9.66 2920347

24.43  NA  NA 158834 1.56 1247740

18.09 46370 0.40 342444 2.94 95277

18.28 27910 27910 273202 1.71 4395432

12.23 887146 8.69 941240

0.82 897349 7.71 461508

27.52 971237 6.08 338353

9.22  NA  NA 422139

3.96 NA NA 381783

2.12 NA NA 533640

4.14

3.28

3.34

Total Expenditure Non-Developmental Expenditures of which  Public works

Developmental Expenditures of which 

Family welfare Education, art & culture and sports & youth services Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation Labour & employment Housing Industry Agriculture & allied services

 NA 1222210 893259  NA 893259 10.50 640690 636007 478272 Others 6.28 5.46 2.99 Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total . Special programmes for rural development

 

57

 

Table A2.8: Expenditure Pattern of Nellikkushi Grama Panchayat

(In Rupees) 2004-05 14201178

2005-06 16347133

2006-07 17422579

1787709 (12.59) 154000 (1.08)

2118390 (12.96) 5066 (0.03)

2327857 (13.36) 11245 (0.06)

76563

55274

163257

(0.54) 1557146

(0.34) 2058050

(0.94) 2153355

12413469 (87.41) 3261960

14228743 (87.04) 3642212

15094722 (86.64) 1112439

Education, art & culture and sports & youth services

(22.97) 1798485 (12.66) 235443 (1.66) 581160

(22.28) 1824120 (11.16) 118180 (0.72) 668236

(6.39) 2975736 (17.08) NA  NA 859581

Medical & public health and water supply & sanitation

(4.09) 806021

(4.09) 2706759

(4.93) 2348032

Agriculture & allied services

(5.68) 1757821 (12.38) 1766146 (12.44) 18950 (0.15) 1439840

(16.56) 1761400 (10.77) 758451 (4.64) 966200 (6.79) 1067409

(13.48) 2269376 (13.03) 1766278 (10.14) 18375 (0.12) 2437648

Special programmes for rural development

(10.14) 420156

(6.53) 265757

(13.99) 838206

Others

(3.38) 327487

(1.87) 450019

(5.55) 469051

Total Expenditure Non-Developmental Expenditures  of which  Public works Pension and other service retirement Conccessions Other village development programme Developmental Expenditures of which  Infrastructure Development Social Security & Welfare Family welfare

Labour & employment Housing Industry

(2.31) (2.75) Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  Note: Figures in Parentheses denote percentage of the figures above to their respective total. total .

(2.69)

 

58

 

Appendix A3: Comparison of Budget Estimates with Actuals as Reported by Grama Panchayats Table A3.1: Grama Panchayat: Pallipuram 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax

Actuals as per AFS 1 227.99 41.11 269.10 252.57

Budget Estimates 2 52.74 7.20 59.94 152.59

35.10 10.25 24.35 0.5

19.39 4.18 13.69 1.52

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 -175.25 -33.91 -209.16 -99.99 0.00 -15.71 -6.07 -10.66 1.02

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 332.29 471.01 348.95 65.53 81.04 145.07 77.84 67.59

19.96 9.39 -10.57 Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) 112.54 2.47 0.80 -1.67 a) Interest Receipts 208.70 0.09 0.08 -0.01 b) Education, culture, art 16.67 1.03 0.01 -1.02 c) Medical 9717.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 d) Social Security 5.70 3.71 -1.98 e) Fisheries 53.41 f) Other village development 8.69 2.89 -5.80 programme 200.56 197.51 123.80 -73.70 Total Grant-in-Aid 59.53 8.70 11.99 3.29 Transfer from Central Govt. 27.46 188.81 111.81 -77.00 Transfer from State Govt. 68.86 Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  

 

59

 

Table A3.2: Grama Panchayat: Njarakkal 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) a) Interest Receipts

Actuals as

Budget

per AFS 1 154.44 5.28 159.71 161.35

Estimates 2 259.76 195.90 455.66 262.20

20.41 7.48 8.43 4.5 14.24 1.18

19.11 6.50 8.00 4.60 124.05 0.06

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 105.33 190.62 295.95 100.85 0.00 -1.30 -0.98 -0.43 0.10 109.81 -1.13

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 40.55 97.31 64.95 38.46 6.82 15.10 5.38 2.20 88.52 2049.73

2.63 0.01 -2.62 b) Education, culture, art 26240.30 0.02 0.02 0.00 c) Medical, Health 11.70 0.00 0.06 0.06 d) Social Security 100.00 0.41 0.45 0.04 e) Fisheries 8.22 f) Other village development 5.34 1.04 -4.30 programme 412.18 126.69 119.04 -7.65 Total Grant-in-Aid 6.43 7.74 2.80 -4.94 Transfer from Central Govt. 176.04 118.95 116.23 -2.72 Transfer from State Govt. 2.34 Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  

 

60

 

Table A3.3: Grama Panchayat: Kootampuzha 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) a) Interest Receipts

Actuals as

Budget

per AFS 1 166.33 86.81 253.14 290.79

Estimates 2 313.75 12.10 325.85 364.71

8.93 4.57 4.36 0.0 3.82 0.35

12.28 5.00 7.00 0.28 14.93 2.75

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 147.42 -74.71 72.71 73.92 0.00 3.35 0.43 2.64 0.28 11.11 2.40

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 46.98 617.42 22.31 20.27 27.27 8.54 37.75 100.00 74.42 87.13

1.60 0.45 -1.15 b) Education, culture, art 255.49 0.88 0.08 -0.80 c) Medical 995.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 d) Social Security 0.00 0.00 0.00 e) Fisheries f) Other village development 0.63 10.18 9.55 programme 93.82 278.04 337.50 59.46 Total Grant-in-Aid 17.62 15.83 53.00 37.17 Transfer from Central Govt. 70.14 262.21 284.50 22.29 Transfer from State Govt. 7.83 Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  

 

61

 

Table A3.4: Grama Panchayat: Nellikushi 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) a) Interest Receipts b) Education, culture, art c) Medical

Actuals as per AFS 1 152.32 21.91 174.23 187.80

Budget Estimates 2 201.45 0.00 201.45 196.31

15.36 5.94 9.42 0.0 3.75 0.56 0.15 0.02

15.05 5.30 9.25 0.50 5.31 1.60 0.17 0.03

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 49.13 -21.91 27.23 8.51 0.00 -0.31 -0.64 -0.17 0.50 1.56 1.04 0.02 0.01

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 24.39 13.52 4.34

0.00 0.00 0.00 d) Social Security 0.00 0.00 0.00 e) Fisheries f) Other village development 1.21 2.70 1.49 programme 168.69 175.95 7.26 Total Grant-in-Aid 23.88 17.25 -6.63 Transfer from Central Govt. 144.80 158.70 13.90 Transfer from State Govt. Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  

2.06 12.05 1.86 100.00 29.38 65.27 13.83 28.08 55.14 4.13 38.46 8.76

62

 

62

 

Table A3.5: Grama Panchayat: Nilambur 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) a) Interest Receipts b) Education, culture, art c) Medical

Actuals as per AFS 1 236.94 13.08 250.03 113.82

Budget Estimates 2 374.40 270.85 645.25 430.33

35.35 18.12 1.17 16.0 15.26 1.45 1.34 0.29

91.50 15.00 26.50 22.00 112.83 40.00 0.25 11.00

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 137.46 257.77 395.22 316.51 0.00 56.15 -3.12 25.33 6.00 97.57 38.55 -1.09 10.71

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 36.71 95.17 61.25 73.55

0.00 0.00 0.00 d) Social Security 0.00 0.50 0.50 e) Fisheries f) Other village development 5.44 37.00 31.56 programme 63.21 226.00 162.79 Total Grant-in-Aid 7.87 25.00 17.13 Transfer from Central Govt. 55.35 201.00 145.65 Transfer from State Govt. Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

61.37 20.80 95.57 27.29 86.48 96.38 435.80 97.33 100.00 85.29 72.03 68.54 72.46

 

63

 

Table A3.6: Grama Panchayat: Amarambalam 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) a) Interest Receipts b) Education, culture, art c) Medical

Actuals as per AFS 1 190.36 62.71 253.07 256.02

Budget Estimates 2 347.54 0.00 347.54 345.76

15.15 5.70 8.49 1.0 4.42 2.89 0.01 0.03

42.00 15.50 19.00 3.50 31.93 0.90 1.55 1.40

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 -157.18 62.71 -94.47 -89.73 0.00 -26.85 -9.80 -10.51 -2.53 -27.51 1.99 -1.54 -1.37

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 45.23 27.18 25.95 63.92 63.23 55.33 72.39 86.15 221.53 99.10 97.83

0.00 0.00 0.00 d) Social Security 0.00 0.00 0.00 e) Fisheries f) Other village development 1.04 4.08 -3.04 programme 74.62 236.45 271.83 -35.38 Total Grant-in-Aid 13.02 22.23 66.44 -44.20 Transfer from Central Govt. 66.53 214.21 205.39 8.82 Transfer from State Govt. 4.30 Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

 

64

 

Table A3.7: Grama Panchayat: Perumpadappa 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) a) Interest Receipts b) Education, culture, art

Actuals as per AFS 1 123.41 14.44 137.85 134.39

Budget Estimates 2 8.07 0.07 8.13 210.86

1.45 5.26 9.03 0.2 3.31 0.63 0.00

21.15 8.00 11.00 1.15 10.87 2.10 0.20

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 -115.34 -14.38 -129.72 76.47 0.00 19.70 2.74 1.97 0.90 7.56 1.47 0.20

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 1429.47 22032.35 1594.77 36.26 93.13 34.25 17.89 78.66 69.54 70.14 98.86

1.59 0.55 -1.04 c) Medical 189.54 0.02 0.00 -0.02 d) Social Security 0.02 0.05 0.04 e) Fisheries 70.00 f) Other village development 1.05 33.75 32.70 programme 96.88 129.63 178.84 49.21 Total Grant-in-Aid 27.52 13.01 11.20 -1.81 Transfer from Central Govt. 16.18 116.62 167.64 51.02 Transfer from State Govt. 30.44 Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  

 

65

 

Table A3.8: Grama Panchayat: Alamkode 2006-07

(Rs. in Lakhs)

Revenue Expenditure Capital Expenditure Total Expenditure Total Revenue Receipts of which Tax a) Professional Tax b) Taxes on Properties c) Entertainment Tax Non Tax (Incl. User Charges) a) Interest Receipts b) Education, culture, art

Actuals as per AFS 1 98.03 64.57 162.60 181.66

Budget Estimates 2 124.10 108.65 232.75 207.86

16.04 5.59 9.91 0.5 14.53 2.38 0.00

19.19 4.30 8.00 0.80 17.04 1.05 0.00

Difference between Budget Estimates & Actuals (Col.2 - Col.1) 3 26.07 44.08 70.15 26.20 0.00 3.15 -1.29 -1.91 0.32 2.52 -1.33 0.00

Col. 3 as percentage of Col. 2 4 21.01 40.57 30.14 12.61

0.02 0.02 0.00 c) Medical 0.00 0.00 0.00 d) Social Security 0.00 0.01 0.01 e) Fisheries f) Other village development 3.96 4.73 0.77 programme 151.09 171.63 20.54 Total Grant-in-Aid 4.75 13.75 9.00 Transfer from Central Govt. 146.34 157.88 11.54 Transfer from State Govt. Source of data: Documents collected from GPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.  

16.41 29.91 23.89 39.79 14.77 126.21 6.25 100.00 16.21 11.97 65.45 7.31

 

66

 

Appendix A4: Analysis of the Finances of the Block Panchayats and District Panchayats Table A4.1: Block Panchayat: Kothamangalam 2006-07

(In Rupees) Details of Grants Received

Name of Scheme / Grant  Grant  Development Expenditure Fund Maintenance Expenditure fund General Purpose fund Re imbursement fund from NABARD B-Fund Indira Awas Yojana

Opening balance as on 01.04.06

Receipt during 06-07

Total

Utilization of Grants

Amt utilised during the year 06-07

Closing Balance as on 31.03.07

15875000

15875000

14327964

1547036

755753

2108961 1050211

2108961 1805964

1576627 1168161

532334 637803

637718

7217000 515000 4156394

7217000 515000 4794112

7217000 267760 3668700

0 247240 1125412

Sampoorna Grameen 540677 1380462 1921139 1881842 39297 Rozgar Yojana Swarnajayanti Grameen 14848 172551 187399 168356 19043 Swarozgar Yojana Total Sanitation 71431 704420 775851 292372 483479 Campaign Funds Received from 335633 1673305 2008938 826000 1182938 Grama Panchayats 8018147 21579557 29597704 17785346 11812358 Plan Fund Total 10374207 56432861 66807068 49180128 17626940 Source of data: Documents collected from BPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

 

67

 

Table A4.2: Block Panchayat: Nilambur 2006-07

(In Rupees)  Details of Grants Received

Allotment to

Closing Balance as

Total

implementing officers

on 31.03.07

Opening balance Name of Scheme / Grant  Grant  Establishment / general purpose grant SC Fund Miscellaneous receiptsTender forms Basic Tax Grant Health Grant TSP Swaraj Trophy SCP Indira Awas Yojana Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar

Utilization of Grants

as on 01.04.06

Amount of grant

528326 360843

884000

1412326 360843

971647 300000

440679 60843

1387868 279786

1387868

304839

2500000

2775736 279786 2385118 149520 2500000

1218839 279786 238512 35520 2500000

15601600

16103116

2385118 149520

501516

2146606 114000

14631638

1471478

12683 4510372 4510372 4523055 4482578 40477 Yojana Swarnajayanti Grameen 1035955 4370190 5406145 2197726 3208419 Swarozgar Yojana 1340029 31678500 33018529 30645017 2373012 Plan Maintenance grant 543485 324149 867634 800755 134771 Release Total 6140011 63641797 69781808 56594806 12002336 Source of data: Documents collected from BPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

 

68

 

Table A4.3: Block Panchayat: Perumpadappa 2006-07

(In Rupees)  Details of Grants Received

Name of Scheme / Grant  Grant   Basic tax General purpose grant Maintanence fund Establishment grant SC Department fund Deposit for works Combined Harvester Own fund Development fund IAY SGRY SGSY

Opening

Amount of

Balance 195886 781221

grant

Total

Utilization of Grants Amount expenditure during

Closing

AvailableFund Refund 2006-07 balance 195886 195882 803625 1584846 515299 1069547 1133961 133961 36472 769789 63 63 63 69 69 69 7263 7263 2263 5000 216296 56577 56577 57900 22490 2589 25079 8940 159719 8025000 8025000 7602696 422304 1066 4170000 4171066 3723700 447366 32409 700000 732409 707823 24586 155890 223076 378966 322576 56390 57900 2714 60614 2714 57900 Benificiary contribution 659830 1132500 1792330 489730 830100 472500 Gramapanchayat share 165624 165624 165624 Bill system 92684 92684 92684 Other receipts 327200 327200 38191 289009 Consolidated Fund 31271 31271 31271 Retension Total 2296007 16644620 17780908 527921 14295064 3831699 Source of data: Documents collected from BPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

 

69

 

Table A4.4: Block Panchayat: Vypin 2006-07

(In Rupees)  Receipt Head Name of Scheme / Grant Opening Balance Non-Tax Revenue Social Services of Services of which  which  Education, Sports Art & Culture Health

Expenditure Heads Reciepts 1964738 69084 4000 679985

Establishment Grants

803625

Grant for Maintenance Centrally Sponsored Schemes of Schemes of which  which  IAY SGRY SGSY TSC

1487961 3566596 1609249 306149 96374

Expenditure GENERAL ACCOUNT of which  Travel Expenses Other Expenditure Public Health Medical Service (Own Fund) Maintenance Expenditure Plan Expenditure under decentralised Planning (Including State & Centrally Sponsored Scheme) of Scheme) of which  which  Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) SGRY IAY SGSY (Revolving Fund) Sales Tax

467977 117694 233526 949833 1487961

10520835 2113886 2467441 343593 7630

Plan Grant for Other Items (Deposit Refund) 33150 Decentralised Planning of Planning of which  which  TSP 13842000 142920 Others Total Expenditure 18743526 Total Receipts 24572681 Closing Balance 5829155 Source of data: Documents collected from BPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

 

70

 

Analysis of the Finances of the District Panchayats Table A4.5: District Panchayat: Mallapuram

(In Rs. Lakhs)  Head of Account

2006-07

2007-08

-

-

11.82

17.70

4851.41

6432.51

i) Transfer from Central Govt.

2048.34

3855.98

ii) Transfer from State Govt.

2803.07

2576.54

Total Receipts

4863.23

6450.21

Revenue Expenditure

3996.88

6456.52

Capital Expenditure

0.15

4.00

3997.03 866.20

6460.52 -10.31

Revenue Account- Tax revenues Revenue Account- Non-tax revenues Grant- in- aid and contribution

Total Expenditure Closing Balance

Source of data: Documents collected from DPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

Table A4.6: Financial Situation of Ernakulam District Panchayat 2007-08

(In Rs. Lakhs)  2006-07 Total Receipt

Total Expenditure

2007-08 Closing Balance

Total Receipt

Total Expenditure

Closing Balance

Category A General : Normal RIDF SCP TSP Combined Project

1458.30 348.00 576.81 38.04 1538.75

842.63 0.00 467.18 12.23 0.00

615.67 348.00 109.62 25.82 1538.75

1053.98 348.14 744.11 67.66 1574.75

763.01 0.14 643.15 27.27 11.00

290.97 348.00 100.96 40.39 1563.75

Total – A

3959.90

1322.04

2637.86

3788.64

1444.57

478.07

118.70

8.99

109.71

234.64

209.54

25.09

Maintenance Grant-Road

153.35

153.24

0.10

434.92

420.33

14.59

Maintenance Grant  Non- Road

258.07

141.95

116.12

400.00

102.40

297.60

1.90

1.90

0.00

836.82

524.63

312.19

Category B Category C

Combined Project Total – C

411.42

295.19

116.23

 

71

 

Category D General Purpose Grant

160.69

57.16

103.53

167.83

65.67

102.15

Category E SGRY By Cash

288.02

190.58

97.44

303.83

151.13

152.70

3.00 2.49 7.33

0.00 1.98 0.00

3.00 0.50 7.33

0.00 1.23 6.21

0.00 1.23 0.00

0.00 0.00 6.21

300.84

192.56

108.27

311.26

152.36

158.90

12.16 0.07 0.41 0.03 14.80 0.18

2.56 0.00 0.16 0.00 2.76 0.18

9.60 0.07 0.25 0.03 12.04 0.00

11.52 0.30 0.60 4.98 16.35 5.08

3.65 0.05 0.18 0.00 6.87 1.15

7.86 0.25 0.42 4.98 9.48 3.92

3.39

0.00

3.39

3.39

1.21

2.18

5.66

25.37

0.23 0.12 0.15 42.72

0.20 0.00 0.00 13.31

0.03 0.12 0.15 29.41

1881.61

3100.98

5381.90

2410.08

1105.82

Combined Project Other Funds Interest Total – E Category F Receipt from Sale of Tender Other Receipts Hall Rent Canteen Rent Retension Sales Tax Ayurveda Hospital Auction Comp Gate Destruction Fix from W.Bills Car Auction Total – F Grand Total

31.03 4982.58

-

Source of data: Documents collected from DPs pertaining to Annual Financial Statement and Budgets.

 

72

 

Appendix 5: Spillover Projects as Reported by G.P. Nilambur (in Rupees) Sl. No.

Project Name

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Integrated Paddy Development Goat rearing Education Education Anganwadi-Health card issuence Toilets-Construction Housing Housing Housing House-Repair Anganwadi-Nutrient scheme Road Road Road

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Road Road Road Panchayath -Hall construction Road Road Road Road Fish market-Electrification Road Street Light School-Repair Crache-Wall Construction

28 29 30 31

Anganwadi-Repair Road Fish market Road Total

Plan

Maintanance

Own Fund

5000 10000

50000 50000

46300 181000 100000 6000 3000000 440100 27500 15000 50000 150000 50000 65000 100000 306800 250000 420000 65000 582426 556862 10539 22100 372000 100000

250000

25000 40000 37027

300000

167027

263065 218955 285000 7683647

Total 5000 10000 46300 181000 100000 6000 3000000 440100 27500 15000 50000 200000 100000 65000 100000 306800 500000 420000 65000 582426 556862 10539 22100 372000 100000 25000 40000 37027 263065 218955 285000 8150674

SCP 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Anganwadi-Health Card Issue SC- Health Reimbursement SC-Well Construction SC-Well Construction SC-Well Construction Toilets Housing Housing -ST

10000 10000 20000 30000 22000 3000 175600 250000

10000 10000 20000 30000 22000 3000 175600 250000

 

73

 

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

Housing-Widow Housing SC-Housing By land Purchasing SC-Road ST-Housing House Repair ST-Colony Renovation

15000 115000 139000 41777 22500

Total

853877

Grand Total

1153877

167027

80000 100000

15000 115000 139000 41777 22500 80000 100000

180000

1033877

7863647

9184551

 

74

 

Appendix 6:

Budget Structure of Grama Panchayats in Kerala Major Heads 0028 0029 0035 0041 0042 0045

Budget Structure Sources Taxes Taxe s on Re Receipts ceipts andTax Expenditures Taxes Taxe s on Land Taxes Taxe s on Properti es except agricu agricu ltur al land Taxes Taxe s on vehicles Taxes Taxe s on go ods and passengers Taxes Taxe s related to Transfer of goo ds and services

Non-tax Sources 0049 0059 0071 0202 0210 0211 0215 0216 0235 0250 0401 0403 0404 0405 0406 0408 0506 0515 0702 0801 0810 0851 1054 1055

Interest Payments Public Works

Pension and other service retirement benefits Education, sports, art and culture Hospital facilit ies and P Public ublic Health Fa Family mily welfare Drinking water supply and cleaning Construction of Houses Houses Social welfare and protecti on Other Social Social work s Cereals

Animal Husbandry Diary Development Development Fisheries Forestry and Animal Protection Food storage warehousing Land Reform Reform s Other Village Development Development Programme Minor Irrigation Electricity Traditional Energy Sources Village small scale industries Roads and and Bri dges Road Transport Transport Grant-in-Aid Contribution Funds fro m Central / State State Governments

1601 1604

 Au th or it y Tr ans fer and Reli ef Fu nd s f ro m Stat e Gov ern men t

4000

Capital Account Receipts Capital Receipts

6003

Domestic Loan

Loan and Advances

 

75

 

6004 7610 8009 8011 8443

Central / State government Loans and Advances Loans for Panchayat Employees Provident Fund Insurance, Pension Funds Deposits and Advances Civil Deposits

8448

Local Fund Deposits

8550

Civil Advances

8782

Payment of Cash Cash Transactions between Village / Block / District Panchayat Revenue Account Expenditures

Advances

2049 2059 2071 2202 2203 2204

Interest Payments

2205 2210 2211 2215 2216 2225 2230 2235 2236 2245 2401 2402

Art and Culture Medical and Public Health services Family Welfare Drinking Water supply and Cleaning Housing Welfare programmes for SCs, STs and OBCs Labour and Employment Services Social security and welfare Nutritional Food Natural Disaster Relief Programmes Cereals / Pulses Soil and water Conservation

2403 2404 2405 2406 2408 2425 2501 2505 2506 2515 2702 2801

Animal Husbandry Administration and Management Fisheries Forestry and Wild Life conservation Food Procurement and Ware housing Co Operation Special Programmes for rural development Rural Employment Land Reforms Other Rural development Programme Minor Irrigation Electricity

2810 2851

Non-Conventional Energy sources Small Scale Industries

Public Works

Pension and other service retirement benefits General Ge neral Education

Technical education Sports and Youth Affairs

 

76

 

3054 3055

Roads and Bridges Road Transport Capital Account Expenditures

4059 4202 4210 4211 4215 4216 4225 4235 4401 4402 4403 4404 4405 4406 4408

Public Works Capital Expenditure Education Capital expenditure for medical and public health Capital Expenditure for Family Welfare Capital Expenditure for drinking water Capital Expenditure for Housing Capital Expenditure for the Welfare of Capital Expenditure for Social secrity and welfare Capital expenditure on Cereal Crops Capital Expenditure on soil and Capital Expenditures for Animal husbandry Capital expenditure for dairy Development Capital Expenditure for Fisheries Capital expenditure on Forestry and wild- life conservation  Storage of foods and capital Expenditures on warehousing

4425 4515 4702 4801 4810 4851 5054 5055

Capital Expenditure on Cooperation Capital expenditure for other village development programmes Capital Expenditure on minor irrigation Capital expenditure for Electrification Capital Expenditure on Non Renewable energy sources Capital Expenditure for Small scale cottage industries Capital Expenditure on roads and bridges Capital Expenditure on Road Transport

Source: Budget Document of the Panchayats.

 

77

 

Summary of Findings and Suggestions 1. Fiscal Autonomy 

The Panchayats in Kerala enjoy fiscal autonomy of varied level in accordance to its different tier and as per the functions assigned. However, there needs to be an in-depth assessment of the role of Block Panchayats in the entire scheme of decentralization in Kerala. The Block Panchayats find find themselves increasingly increasingly constrained in their role role in local area development. The Block Panchayats can have more role to play in the economic development of the local areas particularly relating to promotion of village and cottage industries, rural business hubs or operation and maintenance of remunerative enterprises at the local level, promotion of vocational training and alternate learning systems for the physically challenged and creation of social social infrastructure like public libraries, sports facilities or promotion of cultural activities which may not be economical at Grama Panchayat level or inaccessible if provided at district level.

2. Local Planning & Budgeting

There are considerable delays in the preparation of annual plans by the Panchayats and there is gross mismatch in the planning cycle and budget cycle. There needs to be a review of the planning and budgeting process of the panchayats so that the budget for the current fiscal reflects the realities for the corresponding year and spillover projects are minimized. One way of achieving this could be by starting the planning process for a  particular year, at the end of the third quarter of the preceding year, with an appraisal of the achievements in ongoing plan. This would mean that by the time the budget is formulated, Panchayat functionaries will already have a shelf of projects ready to be financed through the budget to be presented and a fair idea on the extent of spillover  projects. This would also allow the Panchayats enough time-frame to undertake creation of more durable public assets with longer gestation period. Moreover, ensuring that the annual budget reflects the financial transactions to be undertaken by the Panchayats for the year would also ensure transparency in the financial processes. 3. Audit and Accounts

There is need for larger attention to the audit practices, financial management and reporting of the Panchayats. There is a need for adopting uniform formats of financial

 

78

 

reporting across all the tiers of Panchayati Raj in Kerala to ensure better transparency, accountability and comparability among Panchayats. In this regard, it may be worthwhile to explore adoption of format provided by Technical Guidance & Supervision /Support (TGS) system of the Comptoller &Auditor General of India, particularly in case of Block Panchayats and District Panchayats. There is also possibility of computerizing the financial management system of the Panchayats to allow better monitoring and tracking by b y the auditors. The study team has also found that Grama Sabha meetings are scarcely held in Grama Panchayats, a major reason cited being lack of interest from peoples given that there are lesser beneficiary driven programmes with Panchayats. However, to instill transparency into the operations of Panchayats, performance audits of the Panchayats may be made mandatory. Such performance audits should be done by citizen’s groups and ideally by the Grama Sabha and the report needs to be made public. 4. Adequate Human Resource

This issue has also been pointed out by the Third State Finance Commission. The Panchayats lack trained human resources particularly in the field of financial management and information systems management. Dearth of human resources have affected performance of Panchayats country-wide, but given the extent of responsibility in governance and development planning in Kerala, there is need for adequate human resources to improve the performances of the Panchayats. Panc hayats.

 

79

 

References: Bardhan.P (2002) “Decentralization of Governance and Development”  Journal of  Economic Perspective, volume 16,November 4 ,pp 185-205

Bardhan P. and D. Mookherjee (2007), “Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries: A Comparative Experience”, OUP New Delhi. GoI (1993), the Constitution Seventy –Third Amendment Act, 1992 on the Panchayat (1993), Ministry of Rural Development. GoI (2006) Report of the Expert Groups –Planning at Grassroot level: Action  programme for EFYP, Ministry of Panchayati Raj. GoI (2007), State Profile 2007, State of Panchayat , Vol, II, Ministry of Panchayati Raj Government of India (2001) “Report of the Task foce on Decentralization of powers and functions upon Panchayati Panch ayati Raj Institutions, Kirishi Bhawan, New Delhi.  Govt of Kerala (2005), Third State Finance Commission Report. Govt of Kerala (2008-09), State Budget of Kerala 2008-09. Jha.

S

(2002)

“Strengthening

local

Fiscal

Governments:

Rural

Fiscal

Decentralisation”, Economic and Political Weekly, and June 29. Kerala State Planning Board, “Kerala Human Development Report 2005”, Govt. of Kerala, India. Kerala State Planning Board, “Kerala Economic Review 2008”, Govt. of Kerala, India. KILA, Handbook Series on Panchayat Administration, Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur, Kerala. Kumar G.N (2006) “Decentralisation and Local Finances” INMR Policy Brief No. 9 , ADB Ooomen M.A. (2005) “Rural Fiscal Decentralization in India” Decentralization and Local Governance: Essay for George Mathew, Orient Longman. Ooomen M.A. (2006) “Fiscal Decentralization to Sub-State Level”,  Economic and Political Weekly, March 2006. 

Pal, M (2004) “Panchayati Raj and Rural governance: Experiences of a Decades”  EPW , 10

 

80

 

Planning Commission (2001), Report of task force on PRIs Rajaraman, I. and Sinha Darshy (2007) “Functional Devolution to Rural Local Bodies in Four states”, June,16 Rajaraman. I (2003) “Defining Local Fiscal Domain”, Fiscal domain for Panchayat , Oxford University Press.  Rao, C.B., Gupta, M. and P.R. Jena (2007) “Central Flows to Panchayats: A comparative Study of Madhya Pradesh”, Pradesh”, EPW , Feb 3, Rao, M.G. (2002), “Development, Poverty and Fiscal Policy: Decentralization of Institutions”, Oxford India Economic Review (2007-08): Directorate of Statistics and Economics government of Rajasthan. Out line of District Statistics, Jaipur (2003): Directorate of Statistics and Economics government of Rajasthan. Rajasthan Panchayati Raj conformity Act 1994. Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rule 1996 Panchayati Raj Status Book 2000, Institute of Social Sciences , New Delhi. First State Finance commission Report (1995-2000), December 1995. 1995 . Jaipur Second State Finance commission Report (2000-05), August 2001, Jaipur Third State Finance commission Report (2000-05), August 2008, Jaipur Report on Panchayati Raj General Election Rajasthan, 2005: Vol.-1 (Zilla Parishad), State Election Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Report on Panchayati Raj General Election Rajasthan, 2005: Vol.-II (Panchayati Samiti), State Election Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Report on Panchayati Raj General Election Rajasthan, 2005: Vol.-1II (Gram Panchayat), State Election Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Annual Report (2007-08) - Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan

 

81

 

Lists of Abbreviations AFS: Annual Financial Statements BDO: Block Development Officer (BDO) BRGF: Backward Region Grant Fund BPs: Block Panchayats CAG: Comptroller and Auditor General of India CFC: Central fianance Commission CSS: Centrally Sponsored Schemes DPs: District Panchayats  DPC: District Planning Committee DRDA: District Rural Development Agency GDP: Gross domestic Product  GPs: Gram Panchayat IAY: Indira Awas Yojna ICDS: Integrated Child development services LFAD: Local Fund Audit Department LSGI: local self Government Institutions MKSS: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan MLALAD: MLA Local Area Development MPLAD: MP Local Area Development NREGS: National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme OSR: Own Source Revenue PAC: Public Accounts Committees PESA: Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act

PHED: Public Health Engineering Department PRIs: Panchayati Raj Institutions PS: Panchayat samiti PWD:  Public Work Department SC: Schedule Caste SFC: State finance Commissions SGRY: Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana SGSY: Swarn jayanti Gram Swa- Rozgar Yojana SSS: State Sector Scheme ST: Schedule Tribes TAG: technical Advisory group TGS: Technical Guidance & Supervision /Support UC: Utilization Certificate ZP: Zilla Panchayat