. Maharashtra’s Social and Health Sector Budget: A Note on Emerging Characteristics and Trends

Seminar onMaharashtra’s Budget: A Scrutiny of Development Discourse

March 25, 2011Organised by CEHAT and other Partners

Anita RathAssociate Professor

Centre for Development StudiesTata Institute of Social Sciences

Maharashtra’s Social Sector: Areas of Concern

Regional Disparity:

a. As per the per capita district income figures of 2009-10, Gadchiroli has less than one-third income of Mumbai; it’s income is just 50% of the average income of the state.

b. Human development indices for 2001 computed for the six revenue divisions range from 0.723 for Konakan to 0.646 for Nagpur, with the average for the state at 0.672.

Anita Rath

109824

7978863179 58464

46535 46340

020000400006000080000

100000120000

Fig: Per Capita District Income for various Revenue Divisions of Maharshtra, 2009-10

( Current Prices; Economic Survey, 2010-11)

Anita Rath

High Incidence of Poverty

a. It has a relatively high incidence of poverty, which is marginally lower than UP.

b. Unequal Distribution of Poverty: Coastal area has relatively low incidence, the rest of the state, particularly eastern region exhibit persistent and very high level of poverty.

c. Particular social groups have significantly higher poverty levels than others; More than half of the rural STs are estimated to be poor.

Anita Rath

Issues Related to Education

a. Literacy rate of the state is 77% (Census)/ 78.2% (NSS 64th

Round-2007-08), but more than half the population does not continue education beyond primary level.

b. Education Development Index constructed by NUEPA put Maharashtra at the 7th rank among the larger states in 2007-08.Maharashtra has a value of 0.727 of the index with the range for larger states being 0.791 (Kerala) to 0.406 (Bihar)

Anita Rath

Health Sector

a. As per the estimates of district-wise IMR (Census, 2001), districts like Gadchiroli, Gondiya and Chandrapur in the Vidarbha region have an IMR which is as high as some of the worst states.

b. The percentage of institutional deliveries and immunisation rates were as low as 20.5 and 36.9 in Gadchiroli in comparison to 89.1 and 92.2 in the district of Mumbai (Suburban).

c. The variation in performance across districts is associated with the variation in the percentage of ST population and accessibility to health facilities across districts.

d. Other specific issues: Vector Borne Diseases- the reported number of cases of malaria and dengue has not declined and the state has not moved towards achieving national level target; Cases and deaths due to acute diarrhoea are relatively high in the state and the declining trend is not discernible.

Anita Rath

Trend of Social Sector Expenditure In India

-Public Expenditure Ratio- Social Allocation Ratio

Anita Rath

20222426283032

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

Publ

ic E

xpen

ditu

re a

s %

of

GDP

Year

Combined (Centre+States) Public Expenditure as Per Cent of GDP

40424446485052545658

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

Dev

. eXP

. as

% o

f Agg

. Exp

endi

ture

Year

Development Expenditure as Per Cent of Aggregate Expenditure

Anita Rath

1990-91

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

(RE)

2009-10

(BE)

14.7 12 12.1 11.9 13.1 11.3 11.9 12.6 13 15.4 14.5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

% o

f GD

P

Development Exp as Per Cent of GDP (Combined)

1990-91

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

(RE)

2009-10

(BE)

4.4 4.3 4.2 4.1 4 3.8 3.9 4 3.8 4.4 4.6

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

% o

f GD

P

Select SSE Exp as Per Cent of GDP (Combined)( Education, fam welfare, medical and public health and water

supply and sanitation)

Anita Rath

1990-91 1998-99 2007-08

States 85 80 69

Centre 15 20 31

85 8069

15 2031

0102030405060708090

Perc

enta

geFig3: Relative Share of Centre and States in Social Sector

Expenditure

States

Centre

Anita Rath

0

20

40

60

80

100

Education, Art and Culture

Medical and Public Health, Water

Supply and Sanitation

Family Welfare Social and Community Services

(1 to 8)

Rural Development

90 91 9484 9088 89 86 82

6478 83

27

73

46

Fig 4: Relative Share States in Select Social Sectors

1990-91 1998-99 2007-08

Anita Rath

Anita Rath

Maharashtra’s Social Sector Expenditure

Anita Rath

Anita Rath

Anita Rath

Table 4: Social Sector Expenditure as per cent of GSDP

1980-85

1985-90

1990-95

1995-00

2000-05

2005-10

Andhra Pradesh 6.8 8.9 7.1 7.1 6.8 7.9

Gujarat 5.3 7.1 6.0 5.7 6.5 5.1

Kerala 7.6 9.2 7.9 7.8 6.7 5.8

Tamil Nadu 6.4 7.8 7.8 6.7 6.4 6.7

Maharashtra 4.9 6.6 5.7 5.3 5.6 5.8

Bihar 6.1 8.1 8.9 9.5 10.4 13.6

All States 4.8 6.1 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.8

Anita Rath

States2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09(RE)

2009-10(BE)

Andhra Pradesh 35.6 35.0 32.5 33.3 29.3 30.8 32.9 32.7 40.8 35.3

Gujarat 35.6 35.2 30.4 27.3 29.0 32.1 33.4 34.9 35.1 37.1

Kerala 39.9 37.6 37.4 30.0 36.2 35.6 31.0 31.4 34.3 35.3

Tamil Nadu 39.4 37.0 32 34.3 32.6 36.9 33.1 35.9 40.1 38.1

Maharashtra 36.6 36.4 33.3 30.9 28.1 35.3 37.3 37.0 37.6 49.9

Bihar 43.7 38.9 36.4 36.7 30.5 38.4 41.0 43.8 45.1 44.5

Table 5: SSE as a percentage of TE: Select States

Anita Rath

12.8

13.1

14.2

14.2

14.3

14.5

14.6

14.8

14.9

15.6

15.8

15.8

16.3

16.7

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

KeralaPunjab

BiharMadhya Pradesh

West BengalOrissa

GujaratUttar Pradesh

Tamil NaduAndhra Pradesh

KarnatakaRajasthan

MaharashtraHaryana

CARG

States

Fig 3: CARG of Social Sector Expenditure- 1980-2010 (All States:15.3)

Anita Rath

10.111.3

11.611.8

12.412.412.5

12.913.2

13.613.81414.1

15.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Madhya PradeshPunjabKeralaBihar

Uttar PradeshWest Bengal

GujaratOrissa

RajasthanTamil Nadu

Andhra PradeshKarnataka

HaryanaMaharashtra

CARG %

State

sFig: CARG (%) in Per Capita Social Sector Expenditure

Anita Rath

AP

BI

GUHA

KA KE

MP

MA

OR PURA

TN

UP

WB

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000Pe

r C

ap

ita

SS

E (

20

00

-20

05

)

Per Capita NSDP (2000-2005)

Fig: Per Capita NSDP and Per Capita SSE(Current Prices, Avg: 2000-2005)

AP

BI

GUHA

KAKE

MP

MA

OR PURA

TN

UP

WB

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Pe

r Cap

ita

Re

al S

SE (

2000

-200

5)

Per Capita Real NSDP (2000-2005)

Fig: Per Capita Real NSDP and Per Capita Real SSE(Avg: 2000-2005)

Anita Rath

AP

BI

GUHA

KAKE

MP

MA

OR PU

RATN

UP

WB

0500

1000150020002500300035004000450050005500

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000

Per C

apita

SSE (

2005

-201

0)

Per Capita NSDP (2005-2008)

Fig: Per Capita NSDP (Avg: 2005-2008)and Per Capita SSE(Avg: 2005-2010), Current Prices

Anita Rath

5.2

6.15.7

5.25.5

5.35.5 5.5

4.9

5.6

7.2

4.55.05.56.06.57.07.5

Fig: Expenditure on Social Sectors as a Percentage of GSDP

Anita Rath

Total(Rs. In Crs)

1990-91 30.6 37921995-96 33.9 83612000-01 15.9 154292006-07 26.4 282762007-08 30.7 297212008-09(RE) 35.6 385152009-10(BE) 53.6 59821

Year Plan

0.05.0

10.015.020.025.030.035.040.0

% of

Tota

l

Year

Figure 4: PLan and Non-Plan Components of SSE in Maharashtra-1990-91 to 2007-08

Anita Rath

Table: Social Sector Expenditure of Maharashtra-Revenue and Capital (Rs. in Lakhs)

Capital Exp. Revenue Exp.

Item Capital % Loans % Tot Cap % Tot Rev Total

1990-91 6686 38.6 10621 61.4 17307 4.6 361893 95.4 379200

1995-96 11111 25.6 32269 74.4 43380 5.2 792733 94.8 836113

2000-01 22041 45.0 26949 55.0 48990 3.2 1493888 96.8 1542878

2005-06 183276 81.3 42236 18.7 225512 9.3 2201302 90.7 2426814

2006-07 147593 72.1 57014 27.9 204607 7.2 2623006 92.8 2827613

2007-08 129373 72.1 50084 27.9 179457 6.0 2792668 94.0 2972125

2008-09(RE) 292334 87.0 43623 13.0 335957 8.7 3515569 91.3 3851526

2009-10(BE) 1284328 97.3 36088 2.7 1320416 22.1 4661680 77.9 5982096 Source: Calculated from data Provided in RBI State Finances

Anita Rath

0 2 4 6 8 10

1990-911995-962000-012005-062006-072007-08

4.65.2

3.29.3

7.26

% of SSE

Year

Fig: Share of Capital Expenditure in Total Social Sector Expenditure

Anita Rath

Education etc, 45.9

Health etc, 13.1

Water Supply and

Sanitation, 5.6

Housing, 4.2

Urban Development,

2.3

Welfare of SCs, STs, OBCs,

3.9

Rural Development,

13.1

Others, 10.51990-91

Education etc, 46.4

Health etc, 9.4Water Supply

and Sanitation, 5.7

Housing, 4.6

Urban Development,

7.8

Welfare of SCs, STs, OBCs,

9.3

Rural Development,

5.1Others, 8.9

2007-08

Anita Rath

2.9

3.73.4

3.02.8 2.6

2.5 2.4 2.32.4 2.3

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Fig: Expenditure on Education, Sports, Art and Culture as a Percentage of GSDP

Anita Rath

Expenditure on Education-As Ratio to Aggregate Expenditure

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09(RE)

2009-10(BE)

Andhra Pradesh 13.3 12.5 11.7 11.6 9.8 11.1 10.8 9.0 11.2 11.1 Kerala 20.0 19.0 17.6 15.7 16.2 16.6 17.1 15.9 16.8 17.5 Gujarat 13.6 12.7 13.5 11.2 11.5 12.6 12.7 13.4 11.6 11.5 Tamil Nadu 18.0 17.3 13.8 12.6 11.2 13.6 12.2 12.7 13.8 14.9 Maharashtra 22.3 22.1 18.9 15.5 14.0 15.7 16.4 17.2 16.3 16.2 Bihar 23.7 20.7 18.4 18.9 15.8 19.6 19.7 17.6 16.6 18.8 Orissa 15.9 14.6 14.3 12.2 12.6 14.7 12.8 14.3 16.0 18.3 All States 17.4 16.2 15.1 12.6 12.7 14.2 14.0 13.8 14.4 15.1

Anita Rath

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Fig: Expenditure on Education-As Ratio to Aggregate Expenditure- Select States

Kerala

Gujarat

Tamil Nadu

Maharashtra

Anita Rath

0.6

0.6 0.7

0.6 0.60.5 0.5

0.5 0.50.5

0.40.40.40.50.50.60.60.70.7

Fig: Expenditure on Medical, Public Health and Family Welfare as a Percentage of GSDP

Anita Rath

Expenditure on Medical and Public Health and Family Welfare-As Ratio to Aggregate Expenditure

2000-

01 2001-

02 2002-

03 2003-

04 2004-

05 2005-

06 2006-

07 2007-

08 2008-09(RE)

2009-10(BE)

Andhra Pradesh 4.7 4.4 4 3.7 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.8 Kerala 5.3 5.8 4.8 4.3 4.5 4.7 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.7 Gujarat 3.4 2.8 3.2 2.7 2.8 3.1 2.9 3.2 3.0 3.4 Tamil Nadu 4.9 4.9 4.1 3.8 3.2 4.2 3.3 3.3 3.8 4.8 Maharashtra 3.9 4.3 3.7 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.4 2.8 Bihar 5.9 4.9 4.2 3.8 3.1 4.5 4.2 4.4 3.9 3.8 Orissa 4.2 3.7 3.8 3.2 4.0 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.9 5.0 All States 4.6 4.4 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.2

Anita Rath

3.94.3

3.73.2

2.73.2 3.1

3.5 3.42.8

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

Fig: Expenditure on Medical, Public Health and Family Welfare- As Ratio to Aggregate Expenditure :Select

States

Kerala

Tamil Nadu

Maharashtra

All States

Anita Rath

0.1 0.1 0.10.2

0.20.3

0.30.4

0.5

0.2

0.10.20.20.30.30.40.40.50.5

Fig: Expenditure on Urban Development as a Percentage of GSDP

Anita Rath

0.3 0.3 0.3 0.30.3 0.4

0.40.5 0.5

0.6

0.3

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

Fig: Expenditure on Welfare of SC, ST and OBCs as a Percentage of GSDP

Anita Rath

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.30.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.2 0.4

3.4

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0

Fig: Expenditure on Rural Development as a Percentage of GSDP

Anita Rath

0.2 0.2 0.20.3

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.20.4

0.0

0.5

1.0

Fig: Expenditure on Rural Development as a Percentage of GSDP

Anita Rath

Issues of Utilisation of Funds

Anita Rath

Poverty Alleviation Programmes SGSY 2000-01 (Utilisation- 75%)

2001-2008: above 90%

NREGA 2007-08: (allocation-Rs. 49783.33 lakhs: Utilisation: 37.97%) 2008-09: (allocation-Rs. 51536.06 lakhs; Utilisation: 43.09%)

IAY 2001-02: (allocation-Rs. 16460.95 lakhs; Utilisation: 82%) 2002-07: (allocation-Rs. 22766 lakhs to Rs. 24513 lakhs; Utilisation: more than 90%) 2007-08 upto Oct.: Utilisation 37%

Anita Rath

Education SSA 2002-03 (allocation-Rs. 43122 lakhs; Utilisation: 22%)

2003-04 (allocation-Rs. 76477 lakhs; Utilisation: 44%) 2007-08 (allocation-Rs. 89523 lakhs; Utilisation: 60%)

MDM 2004-05 (allocation-Rs. 26463 lakhs; Utilisation: 66%) 2005-06 (allocation-Rs. 25741 lakhs; Utilisation: 87%) 2006-07 (allocation-Rs. 46924 lakhs; Utilisation: 68%)

Anita Rath

Health ES 2009-10 Funds for Health in State Plans

2008-09 (Outlay-Rs. 1156.46 crs; Utilisation: Rs. 555.25 Rate: 48%) 2009-10 upto October (Outlay-Rs. 1193.19 crs; Utilisation: Rs. 125.33 Rate: 10.5%)

NRHM 2005-06 (Grant Sanctioned: Rs.24.18 Crs; Exp. Incurred:Rs. 1.93 Crs; Rate: 8%) 2006-07 (Grant Sanctioned: Rs.136.25; Exp. Incurred:Rs. 8.89 Crs; Rate: 6.5%)

RCH Phase II 2005-06 (Grant Sanctioned: Rs.53.07 Crs; Exp. Incurred:Rs. 14.37 Crs; Rate: 27%) 2006-07 (Grant Sanctioned: Rs.124.34; Exp. Incurred:Rs.40.53 Crs; Rate: 33%)

Anita Rath

Table: Additional Resource Requirement (Rs. Crs) (Sen at al, 2010)

Purpose 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Housing 204 214 225

Education 464 500 547

Health etc. 996 1046 1099

Anita Rath

Budget: 2011-12

Anita Rath

Budget: 2011-12% increase over the last

yearExtra Amount (Rs. in Bn)

Rural Development 273% 2431.69

Welfare of Backward Classes

114% 851.79

Health and Family Welfare 88% 224.82

Social Welfare and Nutrition

340% 85.47

Education 38% 57.85

Water Supply and Sanitation

25% 71.98

Housing 30% 13.99

Urban Development 366% 0.11

Other Social Services 50% 63.5Anita Rath

Share of Salaries and Interest Payments in Revenue Expenditure (ES 2010-11)

Year Salaries Interest Payments

2006-07 38.6 19.3

2007-08 34.6 16.2

2008-09 37.9 16.0

2009-10 (RE) 49.4 16.6

2010-11 (BE) 53.3 17.0

Anita Rath

References

Sen, Tapas K. and others (2010), Matching Human Development Across Maharashtra with its Economic Development, Financing Human Development Series-VIII, NIPFP, New Delhi.

Dev, S. Mahendra and Jos Mooji (2002), Social Sector Expenditures in the 19990s: Analysis of Central and State Budgets, EPW, Vol. 37, No. 2.

RBI, Various Years, State Finances- A Study of Budgets, 2009-10.

RBI, Various Years, Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy.

Ministry of Finance (GOI) (2009-10), Indian Public Finance Statistics.

Government of Maharashtra, Various Years, Economic Survey

Anita Rath

Thank you

Anita Rath