data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85f4f/85f4f2952cd84faa67baabe11ebf10536c62ee36" alt=""
To mitigate the spread of coronavirus in India, the central government imposed a nation-wide lockdown on March 25, 2020. The lockdown necessitated the suspension of all economic activities, except the ones classified as ‘essential’ from time to time, and the ones that can be carried out from home. As a result, all economic activities which require persons to travel or work outside home, such as manufacturing of non-essential goods and construction, have stopped since then. While this has resulted in a loss of income for many individuals and businesses, the ongoing 40-day lockdown is also going to severely impact the revenue of the central and state governments, primarily the tax revenue that they would have generated from all such economic activities.
This note discusses the possible effect of the lockdown on the revenue of the central and state governments in 2020-21. At this stage, the effect of the pandemic and the lockdown are difficult to estimate. We do not know whether there will be partial restrictions when the current lockdown ends on 3rd May or the possibility of further action during the year. Therefore, this note can be used as a first estimate to compute the impact under various scenarios. For example, a reader who believes that the effect on GDP growth would be different than the IMF’s estimate used below can extrapolate the numbers to fit his assumptions.
The central government and most of the state governments passed their budget for the financial year 2020-21 during February-March 2020, before the lockdown. The central government estimated a 10% growth in the country’s nominal GDP in 2020-21, and more than half of the states estimate their nominal GSDP growth rate in the range of 8%-13%. Due to the unforeseen impact of the lockdown on the economy, the 2020-21 GDP growth rates are expected to be lower than these estimates. As a result, the tax revenue that the central and state governments will be able to generate are expected to be much lower than the budgeted estimates, during the period of lockdown.
Centre’s revenue
Table 1 shows the revenue expected by the central government from various sources in 2020-21. 73% of the revenue (Rs 16.36 lakh crore) is expected to come through taxes. Because of the impact of lockdown, the actual tax revenue realised at the end of the year could be much lower, depending on how much the nominal GDP growth in 2020-21 gets affected. To estimate the impact on tax revenue, we assume that the tax-GDP ratio (i.e. an estimate of the tax generated out of each unit of economic activity) in 2020-21 will remain the same as the budget estimate. This may be a conservative estimate of loss of revenue due to lockdown as many permitted activities such as agriculture, government services and essential services have zero or lower-than-average taxes.
Based on this assumption, a 1%-point fall in the nominal GDP growth rate could decrease centre’s net tax revenue by about Rs 15,000 crore in 2020-21, i.e. 0.7% of its total revenue. The IMF has projected GDP growth for 2020-21 at 1.9%; given the inflation target of 4%, nominal GDP growth could be about 6%. In that scenario where the nominal GDP growth falls by 4% point from 10% to 6% in 2020-21, net tax revenue loss could be about Rs 60,000 crore (2.7% of total revenue). As mentioned above, the tax-GDP ratio would likely be lower than the budget estimate because of the type of activities permitted during the lockdown. This would increase the adverse impact on tax revenue.
There is a further assumption being made above regarding tax-GDP. While GST tends to move with overall GDP, direct taxes would depend on income growth of individuals and profit growth of companies. In a lower GDP growth environment, the effect on these two items may be higher than the deceleration of nominal GDP, bringing down the tax-GDP ratio. Further, customs duties depend on the value of imports, which may have a lower growth. This would, to some extent, be mitigated by the increase in the rate of excise duty on petroleum products.
These computations have been made considering the 2019-20 revised estimate as the base and the 2020-21 budget estimate as being realistic when it was made. However, these numbers may also be lower. For instance, if we extrapolate the net tax revenue growth rate of April 2019 to February 2020 (as released by the Controller General of Accounts) to March 2020, the shortfall is of the order of Rs 1,62,000 crore or 11% of the revised estimate. Thus, the shortfall in tax collections in 2020-21 may be significantly higher.
Table 1: Central government's revenue in 2020-21 (Rs crore)
Source |
Revenue |
Share in Total Revenue |
Net Tax Revenue |
16,35,909 |
73% |
Non-Tax Revenue |
3,85,017 |
17% |
Dividends and Profits |
1,55,395 |
6.9% |
Capital Receipts |
2,24,967 |
10% |
Disinvestment |
2,10,000 |
9.4% |
Total Revenue |
22,45,893 |
- |
Note: Capital receipts and total revenue do not include borrowings.
Sources: Union Budget Documents; PRS.
Other than taxes, the centre’s receipts consist of non-tax revenue and capital receipts. A significant part of non-tax revenue is from dividends and profits of public sector enterprises (PSEs) and the RBI (Rs 1.55 lakh crore). If profitability gets impacted, then there could be an adverse impact in these figures. The major chunk of capital receipts is budgeted from disinvestment of PSEs (Rs 2.1 lakh crore). Equity markets have declined sharply over the last month. If equity markets remain volatile, the disinvestment process and consequently the disinvestment receipts could get affected. Note that disinvestment receipts were targeted at Rs 2,10,000 crore, significantly higher than the Rs 50,299 crore raised in 2019-20.
Devolution to States
Like the centre, states also rely on taxes for most of their revenue. As per their 2020-21 budget, on an average, nearly 70% of their revenue is estimated to come from taxes (45% from their own taxes and 25% from their share of centre’s taxes). Lower collections in centre’s taxes because of the lockdown will also impact states’ share in them (also known as devolution). Table 2 shows the share of states in centre’s tax revenue and how they could get impacted by a lower economic growth rate due to the lockdown.
Table 2: Impact of lower economic growth during the lockdown on devolution in 2020-21 (Rs crore)
State/ UT |
Share in divisible pool (%) |
Devolution |
Impact of 1% point drop in national nominal GDP growth rate on Devolution |
Revenue impact as a percentage of state’s revenue receipts |
Andhra Pradesh |
4.11 |
32,238* |
293 |
NA |
Arunachal Pradesh |
1.76 |
13,802 |
125 |
0.61% |
Assam |
3.13 |
26,776 |
243 |
0.26% |
Bihar |
10.06 |
91,181 |
829 |
0.45% |
Chhattisgarh |
3.42 |
26,803 |
244 |
0.29% |
Delhi |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Goa |
0.39 |
3,027 |
28 |
0.21% |
Gujarat |
3.4 |
26,646 |
242 |
0.15% |
Haryana |
1.08 |
8,485 |
77 |
0.09% |
Himachal Pradesh |
0.8 |
6,266 |
57 |
0.15% |
Jammu and Kashmir |
- |
15,200 |
138 |
0.16% |
Jharkhand |
3.31 |
25,980 |
236 |
0.31% |
Karnataka |
3.65 |
28,591 |
260 |
0.14% |
Kerala |
1.94 |
20,935 |
190 |
0.17% |
Madhya Pradesh |
7.89 |
61,841* |
562 |
NA |
Maharashtra |
6.14 |
48,109 |
437 |
0.13% |
Manipur |
0.72 |
5,630 |
51 |
0.28% |
Meghalaya |
0.77 |
5,999* |
55 |
NA |
Mizoram |
0.51 |
3,968 |
36 |
0.37% |
Nagaland |
0.57 |
4,493 |
41 |
0.28% |
Odisha |
4.63 |
36,300 |
330 |
0.27% |
Punjab |
1.79 |
14,021 |
127 |
0.14% |
Rajasthan |
5.98 |
46,886 |
426 |
0.25% |
Sikkim |
0.39 |
3,043 |
28 |
0.35% |
Tamil Nadu |
4.19 |
32,849 |
299 |
0.14% |
Telangana |
2.13 |
16,727 |
152 |
0.11% |
Tripura |
0.71 |
5,560 |
51 |
0.30% |
Uttar Pradesh |
17.93 |
1,52,863 |
1,389 |
0.33% |
Uttarakhand |
1.1 |
8,657 |
79 |
0.19% |
West Bengal |
7.52 |
65,835 |
598 |
0.33% |
Total |
100 |
8,38,710 |
7,624 |
0.22% |
Note: *Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya passed a vote on account, so their devolution data has been computed as the total devolution to states provided in the union budget multiplied by their share. The devolution data for all other states has been taken from the state budget documents, which may not match with the union budget data in case of a few states. Revenue receipts data not available for Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya. The total for revenue receipt share has been computed excluding these three states.
Sources: Union and State Budget Documents; 15th Finance Commission Report for 2020-21; PRS.
State GST
Out of the 45% revenue coming from state’s own taxes, 35% revenue is estimated to come from three taxes – state GST (19%), sales tax/ VAT (10%), and state excise (6%). State GST is levied on the consumption of most goods and services within the state. While state GST is the largest component of states’ own tax revenue, states do not have the autonomy to change tax rates on their own as the rates are decided by the GST Council. Thus, due to lower GST revenue during the lockdown period, if a state wishes to increase GST rates for the remaining part of the year, it cannot do this on its own.
Table 3 shows the possible impact of a 1%-point decrease in the growth rates of nominal GSDP (GDP of the state) and its impact on state GST revenue in the year 2020-21. These estimates are based on the assumption that the tax-GSDP ratio during the lockdown remains same as estimated for the 2020-21 budget. However, as discussed earlier, the tax-GDP ratio for taxes such as GST is likely to decline. The analysis estimates the minimum impact on states’ GST revenue and does not captures its full extent.
Table 3: Impact of lower GSDP growth during the lockdown on state GST revenue in 2020-21 (Rs crore)
State/ UT |
State GST revenue |
Impact of 1% point drop in nominal GSDP growth rate on State GST revenue |
Revenue impact as a percentage of state’s revenue receipts |
Andhra Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Arunachal Pradesh |
324 |
3 |
0.01% |
Assam |
13,935 |
128 |
0.14% |
Bihar |
20,800 |
187 |
0.10% |
Chhattisgarh |
10,701 |
97 |
0.12% |
Delhi |
23,800 |
215 |
0.39% |
Goa |
2,772 |
26 |
0.19% |
Gujarat |
33,050 |
292 |
0.18% |
Haryana |
22,350 |
198 |
0.22% |
Himachal Pradesh |
3,855 |
35 |
0.09% |
Jammu and Kashmir |
6,065 |
55 |
0.06% |
Jharkhand |
9,450 |
85 |
0.11% |
Karnataka |
47,319 |
445 |
0.25% |
Kerala |
32,388 |
289 |
0.25% |
Madhya Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Maharashtra |
1,07,146 |
957 |
0.28% |
Manipur |
914 |
8 |
0.05% |
Meghalaya |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Mizoram |
504 |
4 |
0.04% |
Nagaland |
541 |
5 |
0.04% |
Odisha |
15,469 |
139 |
0.11% |
Punjab |
15,859 |
141 |
0.16% |
Rajasthan |
28,250 |
255 |
0.15% |
Sikkim |
650 |
5 |
0.07% |
Tamil Nadu |
46,196 |
410 |
0.19% |
Telangana |
27,600 |
242 |
0.17% |
Tripura |
1,311 |
12 |
0.07% |
Uttar Pradesh |
55,673 |
525 |
0.12% |
Uttarakhand |
5,386 |
49 |
0.12% |
West Bengal |
33,153 |
298 |
0.17% |
Total |
5,65,461 |
5,104 |
0.17% |
Note: Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya passed a vote on account, so data not available. 2020-21 GSDP data for Delhi was not available, so the GSDP growth rate in 2020-21 has been assumed to be the same as the growth rate in 2019-20 (10.5%).
Sources: State Budget Documents; PRS.
Sales tax/ VAT and State Excise
These two taxes have been major sources of revenue for states, estimated to contribute 16% of states’ revenue in 2020-21. With implementation of GST, states can now levy sales tax only on petroleum products (petrol, diesel, crude oil, natural gas, and aviation turbine fuel) and alcohol for human consumption. However, the lockdown has severely impacted the consumption, and thus sale, of all of these goods as most of the transportation is prohibited and businesses selling alcohol are also shut. As a result, the revenue coming from these taxes is likely to see a much larger impact as compared to the other taxes.
In addition, alcohol is also subject to state excise. Table 4 shows the average monthly impact of the lockdown on revenue from state excise. That is, this estimates the loss of revenue for each month of lockdown, with the assumption that there is no production of alcohol for human consumption during such periods.
Table 4: Average monthly impact of the lockdown on state excise revenue in 2020-21 (Rs crore)
State/ UT |
State excise revenue |
Average monthly impact on state excise revenue |
Monthly revenue impact as a percentage of state’s revenue receipts |
Andhra Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Arunachal Pradesh |
157 |
13 |
0.06% |
Assam |
1,750 |
146 |
0.16% |
Bihar |
0 |
0 |
0.00% |
Chhattisgarh |
5,200 |
433 |
0.52% |
Delhi |
6,300 |
525 |
0.95% |
Goa |
548 |
46 |
0.34% |
Gujarat |
144 |
12 |
0.01% |
Haryana |
7,500 |
625 |
0.69% |
Himachal Pradesh |
1,788 |
149 |
0.39% |
Jammu and Kashmir |
1,450 |
121 |
0.14% |
Jharkhand |
2,301 |
192 |
0.25% |
Karnataka |
22,700 |
1,892 |
1.05% |
Kerala |
2,801 |
233 |
0.20% |
Madhya Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Maharashtra |
19,225 |
1,602 |
0.46% |
Manipur |
15 |
1 |
0.01% |
Meghalaya |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Mizoram |
1 |
0 |
0.00% |
Nagaland |
6 |
0 |
0.00% |
Odisha |
5,250 |
438 |
0.35% |
Punjab |
6,250 |
521 |
0.59% |
Rajasthan |
12,500 |
1,042 |
0.60% |
Sikkim |
248 |
21 |
0.26% |
Tamil Nadu |
8,134 |
678 |
0.31% |
Telangana |
16,000 |
1,333 |
0.93% |
Tripura |
266 |
22 |
0.13% |
Uttar Pradesh |
37,500 |
3,125 |
0.74% |
Uttarakhand |
3,400 |
283 |
0.67% |
West Bengal |
12,732 |
1,061 |
0.59% |
Total |
1,74,164 |
14,514 |
0.48% |
Note: Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya passed a vote on account, so data not available.
Sources: State Budget Documents; PRS.
Sales tax/VAT is collected from sale of alcohol and petroleum products. We do not have any data on the reduction of sale of these items -- news reports indicating sale of alcohol in some states while petroleum products would be used by providers of essential services. For estimating the impact on sales tax/ VAT revenue, we have assumed the following three scenarios: (i) 40% shortfall in tax collections, (ii) 60% shortfall in tax collections, and (iii) 80% shortfall in tax collections in any month of lockdown. Table 5 shows the average monthly impact of the lockdown on sales tax/ VAT revenue under the three scenarios.
Table 5: Impact of lockdown on sales tax/ VAT revenue in 2020-21 (Rs crore)
State/ UT |
Loss of sales tax/ VAT revenue per lockdown month |
As a percentage of state’s revenue receipts |
||||
40% shortfall |
60% shortfall |
80% shortfall |
40% shortfall |
60% shortfall |
80% shortfall |
|
Andhra Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Arunachal Pradesh |
9 |
14 |
18 |
0.04% |
0.07% |
0.09% |
Assam |
178 |
267 |
356 |
0.19% |
0.29% |
0.39% |
Bihar |
194 |
292 |
389 |
0.11% |
0.16% |
0.21% |
Chhattisgarh |
138 |
207 |
276 |
0.16% |
0.25% |
0.33% |
Delhi |
207 |
310 |
413 |
0.37% |
0.56% |
0.75% |
Goa |
41 |
62 |
83 |
0.31% |
0.47% |
0.62% |
Gujarat |
774 |
1,162 |
1,549 |
0.48% |
0.72% |
0.95% |
Haryana |
357 |
535 |
713 |
0.40% |
0.59% |
0.79% |
Himachal Pradesh |
56 |
84 |
112 |
0.15% |
0.22% |
0.29% |
Jammu and Kashmir |
50 |
75 |
100 |
0.06% |
0.09% |
0.11% |
Jharkhand |
195 |
293 |
391 |
0.26% |
0.39% |
0.52% |
Karnataka |
593 |
889 |
1,186 |
0.33% |
0.49% |
0.66% |
Kerala |
775 |
1,163 |
1,551 |
0.68% |
1.01% |
1.35% |
Madhya Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Maharashtra |
1,333 |
2,000 |
2,667 |
0.38% |
0.58% |
0.77% |
Manipur |
9 |
14 |
18 |
0.05% |
0.08% |
0.10% |
Meghalaya |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Mizoram |
3 |
4 |
5 |
0.03% |
0.04% |
0.06% |
Nagaland |
9 |
13 |
18 |
0.06% |
0.09% |
0.12% |
Odisha |
292 |
438 |
583 |
0.23% |
0.35% |
0.47% |
Punjab |
186 |
279 |
372 |
0.21% |
0.32% |
0.42% |
Rajasthan |
700 |
1,050 |
1,400 |
0.40% |
0.61% |
0.81% |
Sikkim |
7 |
11 |
15 |
0.09% |
0.14% |
0.18% |
Tamil Nadu |
1,868 |
2,802 |
3,736 |
0.85% |
1.28% |
1.70% |
Telangana |
880 |
1,320 |
1,760 |
0.61% |
0.92% |
1.23% |
Tripura |
15 |
22 |
30 |
0.09% |
0.13% |
0.17% |
Uttar Pradesh |
943 |
1,414 |
1,886 |
0.22% |
0.33% |
0.45% |
Uttarakhand |
66 |
98 |
131 |
0.15% |
0.23% |
0.31% |
West Bengal |
251 |
377 |
503 |
0.14% |
0.21% |
0.28% |
Total |
10,130 |
15,195 |
20,260 |
0.34% |
0.51% |
0.67% |
Note: Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya passed a vote on account, so data not available.
Sources: State Budget Documents; PRS.
How much can GST compensation help?
The shortfall in state GST revenue could get offset by the GST compensation provided to states by the central government. The GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, requires the central government to provide compensation to states for loss of revenue arising due to GST implementation until 2022. For this purpose, the Act guarantees a 14% annual growth rate in state GST revenue, which is much higher than the growth likely in the year 2020-21. As a result, the central government would be required to provide states a compensation equivalent to the shortfall in growth in their state GST revenue, in comparison to the 14% growth.
However, it is likely that there may not be sufficient funds to provide compensation to states in 2020-21. Compensation to states is given out of the GST Compensation Fund, which consists of collections of a cess levied specifically to generate funds for this purpose. The cess is levied on coal, tobacco and its products, pan masala, automobiles, and aerated drinks. The cess collections may see a shortfall as the sale of many of these goods is likely to be affected this year. Note that domestic automobile sales declined 18% in 2019-20 over the previous year while coal production stayed constant.
In the 2020-21 budget, the central government estimated to provide Rs 1,35,368 crore as compensation to states, which is close to the total compensation estimated by states in their budgets. However, due to the lockdown, the cess collections financing these grants are estimated to decrease, whereas the compensation requirement of states is estimated to increase due to lower GST collections. While there is a risk that any incremental requirement may not be met, states’ revenue can see a much larger impact if cess collections are not even sufficient to meet their existing amounts as per the 2020-21 budgets (Table 6). States, on an average, depend on GST compensation grants for 4.4% of their revenue in 2020-21. However, states such as Gujarat, Punjab, and Delhi expect almost 14-15% of their revenue in 2020-21 to come in the form of GST compensation grants.
Table 6: GST compensation grants estimated by states in 2020-21 (Rs crore)
State/ UT |
GST Compensation |
GST compensation as a percentage of state’s revenue receipts |
Andhra Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
Arunachal Pradesh |
0 |
0.0% |
Assam |
1,000 |
1.1% |
Bihar |
3,500 |
1.9% |
Chhattisgarh |
2,938 |
3.5% |
Delhi |
7,800 |
14.1% |
Goa |
1,358 |
10.2% |
Gujarat |
22,510 |
13.9% |
Haryana |
7,000 |
7.8% |
Himachal Pradesh |
3,338 |
8.7% |
Jammu and Kashmir |
3,177 |
3.6% |
Jharkhand |
1,568 |
2.1% |
Karnataka |
16,116 |
9.0% |
Kerala |
0 |
0.0% |
Madhya Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
Maharashtra |
10,000 |
2.9% |
Manipur |
0 |
0.0% |
Meghalaya |
NA |
NA |
Mizoram |
0 |
0.0% |
Nagaland |
0 |
0.0% |
Odisha |
6,200 |
5.0% |
Punjab |
12,975 |
14.7% |
Rajasthan |
4,800 |
2.8% |
Sikkim |
0 |
0.0% |
Tamil Nadu |
10,300 |
4.7% |
Telangana |
0 |
0.0% |
Tripura |
208 |
1.2% |
Uttar Pradesh |
7,608 |
1.8% |
Uttarakhand |
3,571 |
8.4% |
West Bengal |
4,928 |
2.7% |
Total |
1,30,894 |
4.4% |
Note: Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya passed a vote on account, so data not available.
Sources: State Budget Documents; PRS.
A similar scenario played out last year when due to the economic slowdown, the cess collections were not sufficient to meet states’ compensation requirements. As a result, states have received the GST compensation only till November 2019. Note that the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 provides that the GST Council can recommend other funding mechanisms for the Compensation Fund. For instance, this can be done when there is a shortfall of money in the Fund for providing compensation to states.
Impact on State Finances
In light of such severe stress on the revenue side, states will have to either cut their budgeted expenditure or increase their borrowings to meet the budget targets. Note that because of the coronavirus pandemic and the lockdown, states are also making unforeseen expenditure in the health sector and for providing relief from the lockdown. As a result, many states have already started working on the former by drawing up plans to defer or cut their planned expenditure, or divert funds for planned expenditure towards these immediate requirements. With relatively less flexibility on the side of revenue expenditure, capital expenditure could see a larger cut in many states. For instance, revenue expenditure includes expenditure committed towards payment of interest, salaries, and pension. On average, this committed expenditure uses up 50% of states’ revenue. However, some states have already gone ahead and deferred or cut the expenditure towards payment of salaries. Also, with private consumption and investment expected to remain sluggish, reduction of government expenditure could lead to a further decline in GDP.
The other option for states is to increase their borrowings. However, states’ borrowings are limited by their FRBM laws at 3% of their GSDP (with a further 0.5% of GSDP if they fulfil some conditions). States also need the consent of the central government to borrow money. While most states had already budgeted their fiscal deficit for 2020-21 near the upper limit, it seems some states do have some fiscal space to borrow more (Table 7). However, with GSDP expected to take a hit because of the lockdown, fiscal deficit as a percentage of GSDP for all states could be higher than budgeted targets, even if they do not make any additional borrowings.
Table 7: Fiscal deficit estimates for 2020-21 as a percentage of GSDP
State/ UT |
2019-20 (Revised) |
2020-21 (Budgeted) |
Andhra Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
Arunachal Pradesh |
3.1% |
2.4% |
Assam |
5.7% |
2.3% |
Bihar |
9.5% |
3.0% |
Chhattisgarh |
6.4% |
3.2% |
Delhi |
-0.1% |
0.5% |
Goa |
4.7% |
5.0% |
Gujarat |
1.6% |
1.8% |
Haryana |
2.8% |
2.7% |
Himachal Pradesh |
6.4% |
4.0% |
Jammu and Kashmir |
NA |
5.0% |
Jharkhand |
2.3% |
2.1% |
Karnataka |
2.3% |
2.6% |
Kerala |
3.0% |
3.0% |
Madhya Pradesh |
NA |
NA |
Maharashtra |
2.7% |
1.7% |
Manipur |
8.9% |
4.1% |
Meghalaya |
NA |
NA |
Mizoram |
8.3% |
1.7% |
Nagaland |
9.0% |
4.8% |
Odisha |
3.4% |
3.0% |
Punjab |
3.0% |
2.9% |
Rajasthan |
3.2% |
3.0% |
Sikkim |
4.3% |
3.0% |
Tamil Nadu |
3.0% |
2.8% |
Telangana |
2.3% |
3.0% |
Tripura |
6.2% |
3.5% |
Uttar Pradesh |
3.0% |
3.0% |
Uttarakhand |
2.5% |
2.6% |
West Bengal |
2.6% |
2.2% |
Centre |
3.8% |
3.5% |
Note: Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Meghalaya passed a vote on account, so data not available.
Sources: Union and State Budget Documents; PRS.
The percentage of the population living below the poverty line in India decreased to 22% in 2011-12 from 37% in 2004-05, according to data released by the Planning Commission in July 2013. This blog presents data on recent poverty estimates and goes on to provide a brief history of poverty estimation in the country. National and state-wise poverty estimates The Planning Commission estimates levels of poverty in the country on the basis of consumer expenditure surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) of the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
The current methodology for poverty estimation is based on the recommendations of an Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (Tendulkar Committee) established in 2005. The Committee calculated poverty levels for the year 2004- 05. Poverty levels for subsequent years were calculated on the basis of the same methodology, after adjusting for the difference in prices due to inflation. Table 1 shows national poverty levels for the last twenty years, using methodology suggested by the Tendulkar Committee. According to these estimates, poverty declined at an average rate of 0.74 percentage points per year between 1993-94 and 2004-05, and at 2.18 percentage points per year between 2004-05 and 2011-12. Table 1: National poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (1993 - 2012)
Year |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
1993 – 94 |
50.1 |
31.8 |
45.3 |
2004 – 05 |
41.8 |
25.7 |
37.2 |
2009 – 10 |
33.8 |
20.9 |
29.8 |
2011 – 12 |
25.7 |
13.7 |
21.9 |
Source: Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; PRS. State-wise data is also released by the NSSO. Table 2 shows state-wise poverty estimates for 2004-05 and 2011-12. It shows that while there is a decrease in poverty for almost all states, there are wide inter-state disparities in the percentage of poor below the poverty line and the rate at which poverty levels are declining. Table 2: State-wise poverty estimates (% below poverty line) (2004-05, 2011-12)
State |
2004-05 |
2011-12 |
Decrease |
Andhra Pradesh |
29.9 |
9.2 |
20.7 |
Arunachal Pradesh |
31.1 |
34.7 |
-3.6 |
Assam |
34.4 |
32 |
2.4 |
Bihar |
54.4 |
33.7 |
20.7 |
Chhattisgarh |
49.4 |
39.9 |
9.5 |
Delhi |
13.1 |
9.9 |
3.2 |
Goa |
25 |
5.1 |
19.9 |
Gujarat |
31.8 |
16.6 |
15.2 |
Haryana |
24.1 |
11.2 |
12.9 |
Himachal Pradesh |
22.9 |
8.1 |
14.8 |
Jammu and Kashmir |
13.2 |
10.4 |
2.8 |
Jharkhand |
45.3 |
37 |
8.3 |
Karnataka |
33.4 |
20.9 |
12.5 |
Kerala |
19.7 |
7.1 |
12.6 |
Madhya Pradesh |
48.6 |
31.7 |
16.9 |
Maharashtra |
38.1 |
17.4 |
20.7 |
Manipur |
38 |
36.9 |
1.1 |
Meghalaya |
16.1 |
11.9 |
4.2 |
Mizoram |
15.3 |
20.4 |
-5.1 |
Nagaland |
9 |
18.9 |
-9.9 |
Odisha |
57.2 |
32.6 |
24.6 |
Puducherry |
14.1 |
9.7 |
4.4 |
Punjab |
20.9 |
8.3 |
12.6 |
Rajasthan |
34.4 |
14.7 |
19.7 |
Sikkim |
31.1 |
8.2 |
22.9 |
Tamil Nadu |
28.9 |
11.3 |
17.6 |
Tripura |
40.6 |
14.1 |
26.5 |
Uttar Pradesh |
40.9 |
29.4 |
11.5 |
Uttarakhand |
32.7 |
11.3 |
21.4 |
West Bengal |
34.3 |
20 |
14.3 |
All Inda |
37.2 |
21.9 |
15.3 |
Source: Review of Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission, Government of India; Press Note on Poverty Estimates, 2011 – 12 (2013) Planning Commission, Government of India; PRS. Note: A negative sign before the number in column four (decrease) indicates an increase in percentage of population below the poverty line. History of poverty estimation in India Pre independence poverty estimates: One of the earliest estimations of poverty was done by Dadabhai Naoroji in his book, ‘Poverty and the Un-British Rule in India’. He formulated a poverty line ranging from Rs 16 to Rs 35 per capita per year, based on 1867-68 prices. The poverty line proposed by him was based on the cost of a subsistence diet consisting of ‘rice or flour, dhal, mutton, vegetables, ghee, vegetable oil and salt’. Next, in 1938, the National Planning Committee (NPC) estimated a poverty line ranging from Rs 15 to Rs 20 per capita per month. Like the earlier method, the NPC also formulated its poverty line based on ‘a minimum standard of living perspective in which nutritional requirements are implicit’. In 1944, the authors of the ‘Bombay Plan’ (Thakurdas et al 1944) suggested a poverty line of Rs 75 per capita per year. Post independence poverty estimates: In 1962, the Planning Commission constituted a working group to estimate poverty nationally, and it formulated separate poverty lines for rural and urban areas – of Rs 20 and Rs 25 per capita per year respectively. VM Dandekar and N Rath made the first systematic assessment of poverty in India in 1971, based on National Sample Survey (NSS) data from 1960-61. They argued that the poverty line must be derived from the expenditure that was adequate to provide 2250 calories per day in both rural and urban areas. This generated debate on minimum calorie consumption norms while estimating poverty and variations in these norms based on age and sex. Alagh Committee (1979): In 1979, a task force constituted by the Planning Commission for the purpose of poverty estimation, chaired by YK Alagh, constructed a poverty line for rural and urban areas on the basis of nutritional requirements. Table 3 shows the nutritional requirements and related consumption expenditure based on 1973-74 price levels recommended by the task force. Poverty estimates for subsequent years were to be calculated by adjusting the price level for inflation. Table 3: Minimum calorie consumption and per capita consumption expenditure as per the 1979 Planning Commission task force on poverty estimation
Area | Calories | Minimum consumption expenditure (Rs per capita per month) |
Rural | 2400 | 49.1 |
Urban | 2100 | 56.7 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; PRS Lakdawala Committee (1993): In 1993, an expert group constituted to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by DT Lakdawala, made the following suggestions: (i) consumption expenditure should be calculated based on calorie consumption as earlier; (ii) state specific poverty lines should be constructed and these should be updated using the Consumer Price Index of Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) in urban areas and Consumer Price Index of Agricultural Labour (CPI-AL) in rural areas; and (iii) discontinuation of ‘scaling’ of poverty estimates based on National Accounts Statistics. This assumes that the basket of goods and services used to calculate CPI-IW and CPI-AL reflect the consumption patterns of the poor. Tendulkar Committee (2009): In 2005, another expert group to review methodology for poverty estimation, chaired by Suresh Tendulkar, was constituted by the Planning Commission to address the following three shortcomings of the previous methods: (i) consumption patterns were linked to the 1973-74 poverty line baskets (PLBs) of goods and services, whereas there were significant changes in the consumption patterns of the poor since that time, which were not reflected in the poverty estimates; (ii) there were issues with the adjustment of prices for inflation, both spatially (across regions) and temporally (across time); and (iii) earlier poverty lines assumed that health and education would be provided by the State and formulated poverty lines accordingly.[1] It recommended four major changes: (i) a shift away from calorie consumption based poverty estimation; (ii) a uniform poverty line basket (PLB) across rural and urban India; (iii) a change in the price adjustment procedure to correct spatial and temporal issues with price adjustment; and (iv) incorporation of private expenditure on health and education while estimating poverty. The Committee recommended using Mixed Reference Period (MRP) based estimates, as opposed to Uniform Reference Period (URP) based estimates that were used in earlier methods for estimating poverty.[2] It based its calculations on the consumption of the following items: cereal, pulses, milk, edible oil, non-vegetarian items, vegetables, fresh fruits, dry fruits, sugar, salt & spices, other food, intoxicants, fuel, clothing, footwear, education, medical (non-institutional and institutional), entertainment, personal & toilet goods, other goods, other services and durables. The Committee computed new poverty lines for rural and urban areas of each state. To do this, it used data on value and quantity consumed of the items mentioned above by the population that was classified as poor by the previous urban poverty line. It concluded that the all India poverty line was Rs 446.68 per capita per month in rural areas and Rs 578.80 per capita per month in urban areas in 2004-05. The following table outlines the manner in which the percentage of population below the poverty line changed after the application of the Tendulkar Committee’s methodology. Table 4: Percentage of population below poverty line calculated by the Lakdawala Committee and the Tendulkar Committee for the year 2004-05
Committee |
Rural |
Urban |
Total |
Lakdawala Committee |
28.3 |
25.7 |
27.5 |
Tendulkar Committee |
41.8 |
27.5 |
37.2 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group on Estimation of Proportion and Number of Poor, 1993, Perspective Planning Division, Planning Commission; Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty, 2009, Planning Commission; PRS The Committee also recommended a new method of updating poverty lines, adjusting for changes in prices and patterns of consumption, using the consumption basket of people close to the poverty line. Thus, the estimates released in 2009-10 and 2011-12 use this method instead of using indices derived from the CPI-AL for rural areas and CPI-IW for urban areas as was done earlier. Table 5 outlines the poverty lines computed using the Tendulkar Committee methodology for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12. Table 5: National poverty lines (in Rs per capita per month) for the years 2004-05, 2009-10 and 2011-12
Year |
Rural |
Urban |
2004-05 |
446.7 |
578.8 |
2009-10 |
672.8 |
859.6 |
2011-12 |
816.0 |
1000.0 |
Source: Report of the Expert Group to Review the Methodology for Estimation of Poverty (2009) Planning Commission; Poverty Estimates 2009-10 and Poverty Estimates 2011-12, Planning Commission; PRS Rangarajan Committee: In 2012, the Planning Commission constituted a new expert panel on poverty estimation, chaired by C Rangarajan with the following key objectives: (i) to provide an alternate method to estimate poverty levels and examine whether poverty lines should be fixed solely in terms of a consumption basket or if other criteria are also relevant; (ii) to examine divergence between the consumption estimates based on the NSSO methodology and those emerging from the National Accounts aggregates; (iii) to review international poverty estimation methods and indicate whether based on these, a particular method for empirical poverty estimation can be developed in India, and (iv) to recommend how these estimates of poverty can be linked to eligibility and entitlements under the various schemes of the Government of India. The Committee is expected to submit its report by 2014.
[1] While private expenditure on education and health was covered in the base year 1973-74, no account was taken of either the increase in the proportion of these in total expenditure over time or of their proper representation in available price indices.
[2] Under the URP method, respondents are asked to detail consumption over the previous 30 days; whereas under the MRP method five low-frequency items (clothing, footwear, durables, education and institutional health expenditure) are surveyed over the previous 365 days, and all other items over the previous 30 days.