Karnataka Government Urges Centre to Remove Control on Populist Schemes
The Congress government in Karnataka is facing difficulties in generating resources to fund its five poll guarantee schemes, and as a result, it has reached out to the Centre for assistance. The government has made a formal appeal to the Centre, requesting the removal of clauses related to control on populist schemes in order to secure the full amount owed under funds’ devolution. This move comes in response to the Centre’s call for suggestions from states to formulate the terms of reference for the 16th Finance Commission.
Officials have revealed that the Karnataka government has objected to a clause in the terms of reference of the 15th Finance Commission, which focuses on control or lack of it in incurring expenditure on populist measures. This clause is considered a benchmark for providing measurable performance-based incentives to states. In a letter to the Centre, the Siddaramaiah government has strongly expressed its disagreement, stating that such criteria should not be included in the terms of reference for the 16th Finance Commission.
The Centre has previously criticized states for indulging in what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has referred to as the revadi culture, viewing it as detrimental to national development. The Karnataka government maintains that states have the freedom to design their own schemes and argues that the finance commission should not dictate the definition of development or classify policies as populist.
This appeal by the Karnataka government brings to light the ongoing debate surrounding the role of populist schemes in the economic policies of states. On one hand, these schemes are considered beneficial for the welfare of the citizens, particularly those belonging to the disadvantaged sections of society. On the other hand, critics argue that populist schemes place an additional burden on the state’s exchequer and may hinder long-term developmental goals.
As the 16th Finance Commission prepares to formulate its terms of reference, it is crucial to strike a balance between providing financial assistance to states and ensuring responsible fiscal management. While the Karnataka government’s request may be seen as a plea for greater autonomy in decision-making, it also raises questions about the accountability and sustainability of populist schemes.
The removal of the clause concerning control on populist schemes from the terms of reference would allow states like Karnataka to have more flexibility in implementing their policies. However, it is imperative for the finance commission to ensure that the funds allocated to states are utilized effectively and efficiently, without compromising the overall development agenda.
As the debate unfolds, it remains to be seen how the Centre will respond to the Karnataka government’s appeal. Balancing the demands for greater autonomy with the need for fiscal prudence will be a key challenge for the 16th Finance Commission. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a harmonious balance that promotes inclusive growth and sustainable development for all states in India.
