Early this week, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India tabled a report on the finances of Uttar Pradesh for the financial year 2020-21.  A few days prior to that, on May 26, the budget for Uttar Pradesh for 2022-23 was presented, along with which the final audited expenditure and receipt figures for the year 2020-21 were released.  The year 2020-21 presented a two-fold challenge for states – loss in revenue due to impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, and the need for increased expenditure to support affected persons and economic recovery.  CAG noted that Uttar Pradesh’s GSDP grew by 1.05% in 2020-21 as compared to a growth of 6.5% in 2019-20.  The state reported a revenue deficit of Rs 2,367 crore in 2020-21 after reporting revenue surplus for 14 successive years since 2006-07.  Revenue deficit is the excess of revenue expenditure over revenue receipts.  This blog looks at the key trends in the finances of Uttar Pradesh in 2020-21 and certain observations by CAG on fiscal management by the state.

Spending and Deficits in 2020-21

Underspending:  In 2020-21, total spending by the state was 26% less than the budget estimate presented in February 2020.  In sectors such as water supply and sanitation, the actual expenditure was 60% less than the amount budgeted, while in agriculture and allied activities only 53% of the budgeted amount was spent.  CAG observed that in 251 schemes across 57 departments, the state government did not incur any expenditure in 2020-21.  These schemes had a budget provision of at least one crore rupees, and had cumulative allocation of Rs 50,617 crore.  These included schemes such as Pipe Drinking Water Scheme in Bundelkhand/Vindhya and apportionment of pension liabilities.  Moreover, the overall savings due to non-utilisation of funds in 2020-21 was 27.28% of total budget provisions.  CAG observed that the budgetary provisions increased between 2016 and 2021.  However, the utilisation of budget provisions reduced between 2018-19 and 2020-21.

Pattern of spending: CAG observed that in case of 12 departments, more than 50% of the expenditure was incurred in March 2021, the last month of the financial year.  In the civil aviation department, 89% of the total expenditure was incurred in March while this figure was 62% for the social welfare department (welfare of handicapped and backward classes).  CAG noted that maintaining a steady pace of expenditure is a sound practice under public financial management.  However, the Uttar Pradesh Budget Manual has no specific instructions for preventing such bunching of expenditure.  The CAG recommended that the state government can consider issuing guidelines to control the rush of expenditure towards the closing months of the financial year.

Management of deficit and debt: As a measure to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, an Ordinance was promulgated in June 2020 to raise the fiscal deficit limit from 3% of GSDP to 5% of GSDP for the year 2020-21.   Fiscal deficit represents the gap between expenditure and receipts in a year, and this gap is filled with borrowings.   The Uttar Pradesh Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2004 (FRBM Act) passed by Uttar Pradesh Assembly specifies the upper limit for debt and deficits.  The Ordinance thus permitted the state government to borrow more to sustain its budget expenditure.  The fiscal deficit of the state in 2020-21 was 3.20% of GSDP, well below the revised limit. At the same time, the state’s outstanding debt to GSDP in 2020-21 was 32.77% of GSDP, above the target of 32% of GSDP set under the FRBM Act.  Outstanding debt represents accumulation of debt over the years.  

Table 1: Spending by Uttar Pradesh in 2020-21 as compared to Budget Estimates (in Rs crore)

Particular

2020-21 BE

2020-21 Actuals

% change from BE to Actuals

Net Receipts (1+2)

4,24,767

2,97,311

-30%

1. Revenue Receipts (a+b+c+d)

4,22,567

2,96,176

-30%

a. Own Tax Revenue

1,58,413

1,19,897

-24%

b. Own Non-Tax Revenue

31,179

11,846

-62%

c. Share in central taxes

1,52,863

1,06,687

-30%

d. Grants-in-aid from the Centre

80,112

57,746

-28%

Of which GST compensation grants

7,608

9,381

23%

2. Non-Debt Capital Receipts

2,200

1,135

-48%

3. Borrowings

75,791

86,859

15%

Of which GST compensation loan

-

6,007

-

Net Expenditure (4+5+6)

4,77,963

3,51,933

-26%

4. Revenue Expenditure

3,95,117

2,98,543

-24%

5. Capital Outlay

81,209

52,237

-36%

6. Loans and Advances

1,637

1,153

-30%

7. Debt Repayment

34,897

26,777

-23%

Revenue Balance

27,451

-2,367

-109%

Revenue Balance (as % of GSDP)

1.53%

-0.14%

 

Fiscal Deficit

53,195

54,622

3%

Fiscal Deficit (as % of GSDP)

2.97%

3.20%

 

Note: A negative revenue balance indicates a deficit.  The actual fiscal deficit reported by Uttar Pradesh for 2020-21 in 2022-23 budget was 2.8% of GSDP.  This difference was due to higher GSDP figure reported by the state.  
Sources: Uttar Pradesh Budget Documents of various years; CAG; PRS.

Finances of State Public Sector Undertakings

Public sector undertakings (PSUs) are set up by the government to discharge commercial activities in various sectors.  As on March 31, 2021, there were 115 PSUs in Uttar Pradesh.  CAG analysed the performance of 38 PSUs.   Out of these 38 PSUs, 22 companies earned a profit of Rs 700 crore, while 16 companies posted a loss of Rs 7,411 crore in 2020-21.  Note that both the number of PSUs incurring losses and the quantum of losses has decreased since 2018-19.  In 2018-19, 20 PSUs had reported losses worth Rs 15,219 crore.  

Figure 1: Cumulative losses incurred by Uttar Pradesh PSUs (Rs crore)
 
 image
 Sources: CAG; PRS.

Losses of power sector PSUs: Three power sector PSUs—Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, and Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited—were the top loss incurring PSUs.  These three PSUs accounted for 73% of the total losses of Rs 7,411 crore mentioned above.   Note that as of June 2022, for each unit of power supplied, the revenue realised by UP power distribution companies (discoms) is 27 paise less than cost of supply.  This is better than the gap of 34 paise per unit at the national level.   However, the aggregate technical and commercial losses (AT&C) of the Uttar Pradesh discoms was 27.85%, considerably higher than the national average of 17.19%.  AT&C losses refer to the proportion of power supplied by a discom for which it does not receive any payment.

Off-budget borrowings: CAG also observed that the Uttar Pradesh government resorted to off-budget borrowing through state owned PSUs/authorities.  Off budget borrowings are not accounted in the debt of the state government and are on books of the respective PSUs/authorities, although, debt is serviced by the state government.  As a result, the outstanding debt reported in the budget does not represent the actual debt position of the state.  CAG identified off-budget borrowing worth Rs 1,637 crore.  The CAG recommended that the state government should avoid extra-budget borrowings.  It should also credit all the loans taken by PSUs/authorities on behalf of and serviced by the state government to state government accounts.

Management of Reserve Funds

The Reserve Bank of India manages two reserve funds on the behalf of state governments.   These funds are created to meet the liabilities of state governments.  These funds are: (i) Consolidated Sinking Fund (CSF), and (ii) Guarantee Redemption Fund (GRF).  They are funded by the contributions made by the state governments.  CSF is an amortisation fund which is utilised to meet the repayment obligations of the government.  Amortisation refers to payment of debt through regular instalments.  The interest accumulated in the fund is used for repayment of outstanding liabilities (which is the accumulation of total borrowings at the end of a financial year, including any liabilities on the public account).  

In line with the recommendation of the 12th Finance Commission, Uttar Pradesh created its CSF in March 2020.  The state government may transfer at least 0.5% of its outstanding liabilities at the end of the previous year to the CSF.  CAG observed that in 2020-21, Uttar Pradesh appropriated only Rs 1,000 crore to the CSF against the requirement of Rs 2,454 crore.  CAG recommended that the state government should ensure at least 0.5% of the outstanding liabilities are contributed towards the CSF every year.

GRF is constituted by states to meet obligations related to guarantees.  The state government may extend guarantee on loans taken by its PSUs.  Guarantees are contingent liabilities of the state government, as in case of default by the company, repayment burden will fall on the state government.  GRF can be used to settle guarantees extended by the government with respect to borrowings of state PSUs and other bodies.  The 12th Finance Commission had recommended that states should constitute GRF.  It was to be funded through guarantees fees to meet any sudden discharge of obligated guarantees extended by the states.  CAG noted that Uttar Pradesh government has not constituted GRF.  Moreover, the state has also not fixed any limits for extending guarantees.  

For an analysis of Uttar Pradesh’s 2022-23 budget, please see here.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 was released on July 30, 2020.  It will replace the National Policy on Education, 1986.  Key recommendations of the NEP include: (i) redesigning the structure of school curriculum to incorporate early childhood care and education, (ii) curtailing dropouts for ensuring universal access to education, (iii) increasing gross enrolment in higher education to 50% by 2035, and (iv) improving research in higher education institutes by setting up a Research Foundation.  In this blog, we examine the current status of education in the country in view of some of these recommendations made by the NEP.

Universal access to Education

The NEP states that the Right to Education Act, 2009 has been successful in achieving near universal enrolment in elementary education, however retaining children remains a challenge for the schooling system.  As of 2015-16, Gross Enrolment Ratio was 56.2% at senior secondary level as compared to 99.2% at primary level.  GER denotes enrolment as a percent of the population of corresponding age group.  Further, it noted that the decline in GER is higher for certain socio-economically disadvantaged groups, based on: (i) gender identities (female, transgender persons), (ii) socio-cultural identities (scheduled castes, scheduled tribes), (iii) geographical identities (students from small villages and small towns), (iv) socio-economic identities (migrant communities and low income households), and (v) disabilities.  In the table below, we detail the GER in school education across: (i) gender, and (ii) socio-cultural identities.  

Table 1: GER in school education for different gender and social groups (2015-16)

Level

Male

Female

SC

ST

All

Primary (I-V) 

97.9%

100.7%

110.9%

106.7%

99.2%

Upper Primary (VI-VIII) 

88.7%

97.6%

102.4%

96.7%

92.8%

Secondary (IX-X) 

79.2%

81%

85.3%

74.5%

80%

Senior Secondary (XI-XII) 

56%

56.4%

56.8%

43.1%

56.2%

Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.

Data for all groups indicates decline in GER as we move from primary to senior secondary for all groups.  This decline is particularly high in case of Scheduled Tribes.  Further, we analyse the reason for dropping out from school education.  Data suggests that the most prominent reason for dropping out was: engagement in domestic activities (for girls) and engagement in economic activities (for boys). 

Table 2: Major reasons for dropping out (Class 1-12) for 2015-16

Reason for dropping out

Male

Female

Child not interested in studies 

23.8%

15.6%

Financial Constraints 

23.7%

15.2%

Engage in Domestic Activities 

4.8%

29.7%

Engage in Economic Activities 

31.0%

4.9%

School is far off 

0.5%

3.4%

Unable to cop-up with studies 

5.4%

4.6%

Completed desired level/ Class 

5.7%

6.5%

Marriage

 

13.9%

Other reasons

5.1%

6.2%

Note: Other reasons include: (i) timings of educational Institution not suitable, (ii) language/medium of Instruction used unfamiliar, (iii) inadequate number of teachers, (iv) quality of teachers not satisfactory, (v) unfriendly atmosphere at school. For girl students, other reasons also include: (i) non-availability of female teachers, (ii) non-availability of girl’s toilet.
Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.

The NEP recommends strengthening of existing schemes and policies which are targeted for such socio-economically disadvantaged groups (for instance, schemes for free bicycles for girls or scholarships) to tackle dropouts.   Further, it recommends setting up special education zones in areas with significant proportion of such disadvantaged groups.  A gender inclusion fund should also be setup to assist female and transgender students in getting access to education. 

Increasing GER in Higher Education to 50% by 2035

The NEP aims to increase the GER in higher education to 50% by 2035.  As of 2018-19, the GER in higher education in the country stood at 26.3%.  Figure 2 shows the trend of GER in higher education over the last few years.  Note that the annual growth rate of GER in higher education in the last few years has been around 2%.    

Figure 1: GER in Higher Education (2014-15 to 2018-19)

image                                                                                                     

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: All India Survey on Higher Education, MHRD; PRS.

Table 3: Comparison of GER (higher education) with other countries

Country

GER (2017-18)

India 

25%

Brazil

51%

China

49%

Indonesia

36%

South Africa

22%

Pakistan

9%

Germany

70%

France 

66%

United Kingdom

60%

Sources: UNESCO; PRS.

The NEP recommends that for increasing GER, capacity of existing higher education institutes will have to be improved by restructuring and expanding existing institutes.  It recommends that all institutes should aim to be large multidisciplinary institutes (with enrolments in thousands), and there should be one such institution in or near every district by 2030.   Further, institutions should have the option to run open distance learning and online programmes to improve access to higher education.  

Foundational literacy and numeracy

The NEP states that a large proportion of the students currently enrolled in elementary school have not attained foundational literacy and numeracy (the ability to read and understand basic text, and carry out basic addition and subtraction).  It recommends that every child should attain foundational literacy and numeracy by grade three.  

Table 4 highlights the results of the National Achievement Survey 2017 on the learning levels of students at Grade 3 in language and mathematics.  The results of the survey suggest that only 57% students in Grade 3 are able to solve basic numeracy skills related to addition and subtraction.  

Table 4: NAS results on learning level of Grade-3 students

Learning level (Grade 3)

Percentage of students

Ability to read small texts with comprehension (Language)

68%

Ability to read printed scripts on classroom walls such as poems, posters (Language)

65%

Solving simple daily life addition and subtraction problems with 3 digits (Mathematics)

57%

Analyses and applies the appropriate number operation in a situation (Mathematics)

59%

Sources: National Achievement Survey (2017) dashboard, NCERT; PRS.

To achieve universal foundational literacy and numeracy, the Policy recommends setting up a National Mission on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy under the MHRD.  All state governments must prepare implementation plans to achieve these goals by 2025.  A national repository of high-quality resources on foundational literacy and numeracy will be made available on government’s e-learning platform (DIKSHA).   Other measures to be taken in this regard include: (i) filling teacher vacancies at the earliest, (ii) ensuring a pupil to teacher ratio of 30:1 for effective teaching, and (iii) training teachers to impart foundational literacy and numeracy.

Effective governance of schools

The Policy states that establishing primary schools in every habitation across the country has helped increase access to education.  However, it has led to the development of schools with low number of students.  The small size of schools makes it operationally and economically challenging to deploy teachers and critical physical resources (such as library books, sports equipment).  

With respect to this observation, the distribution of schools by enrolment size can be seen in the table below.  Note that, as of September 2016, more than 55% of primary schools in the country had an enrolment below 60 students.   

Table 5: Distribution of schools by enrolment size

Strength (Grade)

Below 30

31-60

61-90

91-120

121-150

151-200

More than 200

Primary schools (Class 1-5)

28.0%

27.5%

16.0%

10.3%

6.3%

5.6%

6.4%

Upper primary schools (Class 6-8)

14.8%

27.9%

18.7%

15.0%

8.4%

7.2%

8.0%

Upper primary schools (Class 1-8)

5.7%

11.6%

13.0%

12.1%

10.4%

13.4%

33.8%

Sources: Flash Statistics on School Education 2016-17, UDISE; PRS.

While nearly 80% primary schools had a library, only 1.5% schools had a librarian (as of September 2016).  The availability of facilities is better in higher senior secondary schools as compared to primary or upper primary schools. 

Table 6: Distribution of schools with access to physical facilities

Facilities

Primary schools (Class 1-5)

Upper primary schools (Class 1-8)

Higher senior secondary
 schools (Class 1-12)

Library

79.8%

88.0%

94.4%

Librarian

1.5%

4.5%

34.4%

Playground

54.9%

65.5%

84.3%

Functional computer

4.4%

25.2%

46.0%

Internet connection

0.9%

4.2%

67.9%

Sources: Flash Statistics on School Education 2016-17, UDISE; PRS.

To overcome the challenges associated with development of small schools, the NEP recommends grouping schools together to form a school complex.  The school complex will consist of one secondary school and other schools, aanganwadis in a 5-10 km radius.  This will ensure: (i) adequate number of teachers for all subjects in a school complex, (ii) adequate infrastructural resources, and (iii) effective governance of schools.

Restructuring of Higher Education Institutes

The NEP notes that the higher education ecosystem in the country is severely fragmented.  The present complex nomenclature of higher education institutes (HEIs) in the country such as ‘deemed to be university’, ‘affiliating university’, ‘affiliating technical university', ‘unitary university’ shall be replaced simply by 'university'.

According to the All India Survey on Higher Education 2018-19, India has 993 universities, 39,931 colleges, and 10,725 stand-alone institutions (technical institutes such as polytechnics or teacher training institutes).  

Table 7: Number of Universities in India according to different categories

Type of university

Number of universities

Central University

46

Central Open University

1

Institutes of National Importance

127

State Public University

371

Institution Under State Legislature Act

5

State Open University

14

State Private University

304

State Private Open University

1

Deemed University- Government

34

Deemed University- Government Aided

10

Deemed University- Private

80

Total

993

Sources: All India Survey on Higher Education 2018-19; PRS.

The NEP recommends that all HEIs should be restructured into three categories: (i) research universities focusing equally on research and teaching, (ii) teaching universities focusing primarily on teaching, and (iii) degree granting colleges primarily focused on undergraduate teaching.  All such institutions will gradually move towards full autonomy - academic, administrative, and financial.  

Setting up a National Research Foundation to boost research

The NEP states that investment on research and innovation in India, at only 0.69% of GDP, lags behind several other countries.   India’s expenditure on research and development (R&D) in the last few years can be seen in the figure below.   Note that the total investment on R&D in India as a proportion of GDP has been stagnant at around 0.7% of GDP.   In 2018-19, the total expenditure on R&D in India was Rs 1,23,848 crore.  Of this, Rs 72,732 crore (58%) of expenditure was by government, and the remaining (42%) was by private industry. 

Figure 2: R&D Expenditure in India (2011-12 to 2018-19) 

image     

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: S&T Indicators Table 2019-20, Ministry of Science and Technology, March 2020; PRS.

Figure 3: Comparison of R&D expenditure in India with other countries (2017)

image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: S&T Indicators Table 2019-20, Ministry of Science and Technology, March 2020; PRS.

To boost research, the NEP recommends setting up an independent National Research Foundation (NRF) for funding and facilitating quality research in India.  The Foundation will act as a liaison between researchers and relevant branches of government as well as industry.  Specialised institutions which currently fund research, such as the Department of Science and Technology, and the Indian Council of Medical Research, will continue to fund independent projects.  The Foundation will collaborate with such agencies to avoid duplication.

Digital education

The NEP states that alternative modes of quality education should be developed when in-person education is not possible, as observed during the recent pandemic.  Several interventions must be taken to ensure inclusive digital education such as: (i) developing two-way audio and video interfaces for holding online classes, and (ii) use of other channels such as television, radio, mass media in multiple languages to ensure reach of digital content where digital infrastructure is lacking.

In this context, we analyse: (i) the availability of computer and internet across households in India, and (ii) ability to use computer or internet by persons in the age group of 5-14.  As of 2017-18, the access to internet and computer was relatively poor in rural areas.  Only 4.4% of rural households have access to a computer (excludes smartphones), and nearly 15% have access to internet facility.  Amongst urban households, 42% have access to internet. 

Table 8: Access to Computer and Internet across households (2017-18)

Access to ICT

Rural

Urban

Overall

Households having computer

4.4%

23.4%

10.7%

Households having internet facility

14.9%

42.0%

23.8%

Note: Computer includes desktop, laptop, notebook, tablet.  It does not include smartphone. 

Sources: Household Social Consumption on Education (2017-18), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, July 2020; PRS.

Table 9: Ability to use Computer and Internet across persons in the age group 5-14 (2017-18)

Ability to use ICT

Rural

Urban

Overall

Ability to use computer

5.1%

21.3%

9.1%

Ability to use internet

5.1%

19.7%

8.8%

Note: Ability to use computer means to be able to carry out any of the tasks such as: (i) copying or moving a file/folder, (ii) sending emails, (iii) transferring files between a computer and other devices, among others. Ability to use internet means to be able to use the internet browser for website navigation, using e-mail or social networking applications.

Sources: Household Social Consumption on Education (2017-18), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, July 2020; PRS.

Public spending on education to be increased to 6% of GDP

The recommendation of increasing public spending on Education to 6% of GDP was first made by the National Policy on Education 1968 and reiterated by the 1986 Policy.  NEP 2020 reaffirms the recommendation of increasing public spending on education to 6% of GDP.  In 2017-18, the public spending on education (includes spending by centre and states) was budgeted at 4.43% of GDP.  

Table 10: Public spending on Education (2013-2018)

Year

Public expenditure (Rs crore)

% of GDP

2013-14

4,30,879

3.84%

2014-15

5,06,849

4.07%

2015-16

5,77,793

4.20%

2016-17

6,64,265

4.32%

2017-18

7,56,945

4.43%

Sources: 312th Report, Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, March 2020; PRS.

Figure 4: Comparison of public spending on Education in India with other countries as % of GDP (2015)

image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.

In the figure below, we look at the disparities within states in education spending.  In 2020-21, states in India have allocated 15.7% of their budgeted expenditure towards education.  States such as Delhi, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra have allocated more than 18% of their expenditure on Education for the year 2020-21.  On the other hand, Telangana (7.4%), Andhra Pradesh (12.1%) and Punjab (12.3%) lack in spending on education, as compared to the average of states. 

Figure 5: Budgeted allocation on Education (2020-21) by states in India

image

Note: AP is Andhra Pradesh, UP is Uttar Pradesh, HP is Himachal Pradesh and WB is West Bengal.
Sources: Analysis of various state budget documents; PRS.

For a detailed summary of the National Education Policy, see here