Sixteenth Finance Commission: Devolution, Federal Balance and Fiscal Constraints

The Sixteenth Finance Commission (FC-16), chaired by Arvind Panagariya, has submitted its recommendations for the period 2026–31 at a time when State finances are under sustained pressure due to the GST framework, shrinking fiscal autonomy, and rising expenditure responsibilities.

Vertical Devolution- Stability over Expansion

• Status Quo in Devolution Ratio: Despite States demanding an increase in their share to 50%, the 16th Finance Commission (FC-16) has retained the existing vertical devolution formula.
  • Central Government Share: 59%
  • State Governments’ Share: 41%
• Unaddressed Vertical Imbalance: This continuity ensures predictability in transfers but fails to address the vertical imbalance, even as the Commission itself acknowledges the tightening of States’ fiscal space under GST.

Explore UPSC Optional Courses

Explore UPSC Optional Courses

Horizontal Devolution- Revised Formula and Parameters

• Reworked Distribution Framework: FC-16 has reworked the formula for distributing the 41% States’ share among individual States, signalling a gradual shift towards efficiency while retaining redistribution.
• Key Parameters and Weights (FC-16):
  • Income Distance (42.5%): Reduced from 45%; continues to favour poorer States such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.
  • Population (2011) (17.5%): Increased from 15%; benefits more populous States.
  • Demographic Performance (10%): Reduced from 12.5%; reflects the view that penalising population growth is less appropriate as India nears its demographic dividend peak.
  • Area (10%): Reduced from 15%; still favours geographically large States like Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
  • Forest Cover (10%): Retained; benefits States such as Arunachal Pradesh that provide ecological services.
  • Contribution to GDP (10%): introduced in place of tax and fiscal effort (2.5% under FC-15).
    • The removal of the tax and fiscal effort criterion and its replacement with a GDP contribution criterion represents a modest attempt to link governance outcomes and economic performance to fiscal transfers, benefiting states such as Maharashtra and Gujarat.
• Limited Gains: While the revised formula offers marginal gains to industrialised and fiscally better-performing States, the overall redistribution remains tightly constrained.
• Avoidance of Fiscal Shocks: The Commission argues that sharp reallocation could destabilise transfer-dependent States, risking sudden fiscal stress.
• Incremental Reform Approach: This reflects a deliberate preference for gradualism, prioritising stability and predictability over rapid, transformative change in fiscal federalism.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Structural Constraints- Cesses, Surcharges and Centralisation

• Cesses and Surcharges: FC-16 notes that the increasing reliance on these non-shareable levies reduces the effective divisible pool, but by not recommending their inclusion, it effectively curtails States’ actual fiscal share despite unchanged devolution ratios.
• Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS): Although total transfers are projected to rise by 12.2%, nearly ₹1.2 lakh crore (around 42%) of this increase flows through CSS (Centrally Sponsored Schemes), tying State finances to Union-defined priorities and reducing fiscal autonomy.

Conclusion

The Sixteenth Finance Commission recognises the stresses in State finances and introduces measured horizontal reforms, but by retaining the 41% vertical devolution and avoiding decisive action on cesses and surcharges, it misses an opportunity to structurally rebalance India’s fiscal federalism, reinforcing a Centre-centric governance model.

DOWNLOAD PDF