Study on Economic Census and Budget Planning of Haryana

This work presents Economic -cum-Purpose Classification of budgetary transactions of Haryana Government Budget for the year 2009-10, 2010-11 [Revised Estimates (R.E.)] and 2011-12 [Budget Estimates (B.E.)]. The present Economic-cum-Purpose Classification report is based on the methodology adopted by the National Accounts Division of Central Statistical Organisation (CSO), Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, and Government of India. The economic classification groups together the primary items of consumption expenditure, commodities and services, maintenance , current and capital transfers, capital formation out of budgetary resources whereas the purpose classification groups these according to the particular purpose or functions they perform such as general public services, education affairs and services , health affairs and services, welfare affairs and services, housing and community amenity affairs and services, cultural, recreational and religious affairs and services, economic affairs and services etc., These two types of classifications are integrated into “ Economic-cum- Purpose Classification” which presents in a consolidated statement, the economic-cum-purpose characteristics of the government budgetary transactions.

The Government transactions can be classified according to (i) the economic character such as Government consumption expenditure, goods and services, maintenance, capital formation, Loans& Advances, transfers etc. (ii) the purpose or functions it serves such as economic affairs and services, education affairs and services , health affairs and services etc. Budget can broadly be divided into Administrative Departments and Departmental Commercial Undertakings. Administrative Departments are Government agencies for the implementation of social and economic policy of the Government whereas Departmental Commercial Undertakings are un-incorporated enterprises owned, controlled and run by the Government. The Economic Classification of the Haryana Government Budget which groups together the budgetary transactions in significant economic categories places the total expenditure at Rs. 4092208 lakh in 2011-12 [(Budget Estimates(B.E.)] as compared to Rs. 3774893 lakh in 2010-11 [(Revised Estimates(R.E.)] and Rs. 3040596 lakh in 2009-10 showing an increase of 8.41 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) over 2010-11 (R.E.) whereas this increase was 24.15 percent in 2010-11 (R.E.) over 2009-10. Consumption expenditure of the Government is estimated at Rs. 1459026 lakh in 2011-12 (B.E.) as 2011-12(B.E.) over 2010-11(R.E) and 24.47 percent in 2010-11(R.E) over 2009-10. Gross capital formation i.e. investment on buildings, roads and other construction, purchase of vehicles and machinery and equipment by Administrative Departments and Departmental Commercial Undertakings is estimated at Rs. 425441 lakh in 2011-12 (B.E.) as against Rs. 374245 lakh in 2010-11 (R.E.) and Rs. 357125lakh in 2009-10 showing a increase of 13.68 percent in 2011-12(B.E.) over 2010-11(R.E) whereas it increased by 4.79 percent in 2010-11(R.E) over 2009-10. In addition to the gross capital formation directly undertaken, the State Government also provides financial assistance to the other sectors of the economy for capital formation through grants, loans and advances and by purchasing financial assets.

According to Economic Classification of Haryana Government Budget, the total expenditure is estimated at Rs. 4092208 lakh in 2011-12 [Budget Estimate (B.E.)] as compared to Rs. 3774893 lakh in 2010-11 [Revised Estimate (R.E.)] and Rs. 3040596 Lakh in 2009-10. The total expenditure is estimated to be increased by 8.41 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) over 2010-11 (R.E.) whereas this increase was 24.15 percent in 2010-11 (R.E.) over 2009-10. Consumption Expenditure of the Government is estimated at Rs. 1459026 lakh in 2011-12 (B.E.) as against Rs. 1456753 lakh in 2010-11 (R.E.) and Rs. 1170360 lakh in 2009-10. The consumption expenditure of the Govt. is estimated to increase by 0.16 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) over 2010-11 (R.E.) whereas it increases by 24.47 percent in 2010-11 (R.E.) over 2009-10. Gross Capital Formation i.e. investment on buildings, roads & other constructions, purchase of vehicles and machinery & equipment by Administrative Departments and Departmental Commercial Undertakings is estimated at Rs. 425441 lakh in 2011-12 (B.E.) as against Rs. 374245 lakh in 2010-11 (R.E.) and Rs.357125 lakh in 2009-10 showing an increase of 13.68 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) over 2010-11 (R.E.) where as it increased by 4.79 percent in 2010-11 (R.E.) over 2009-10. Current transfers which also include subsidies and interest payments are estimated at Rs. 1484599 lakh in 2011-12 (B.E.) as against Rs. 1312149 lakh in 2010-11 (R.E.) and Rs. 1013508 lakh in 2009-10. It indicates that current transfers are likely to increase by 13.14 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) over 2010-11 (R.E.) Capital transfers are estimated at Rs. 247396 lakh in 2011-12 (B.E.) as against Rs. 205028 lakh in 2010-11 (R.E.) and Rs. 125763 lakh in 2009-10. It shows that capital transfer are estimated to increase by 20.66 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) over 2010-11 (R.E.) whereas it increased by 63.03 percent in 2010-11 (R.E.) over 2009-10.-10- The details of Budgetary expenditure of Haryana Government as per economic classification is given in the following table:-

Current receipts of the State Government show the sources of finance to the Government and also assess the economic implication of Government expenditure. The current receipts of the State Government are estimated at Rs. 2954102 lakh in 2011-12 (B.E.) as compared to Rs. 2535715 lakh in 2010-11 (R.E.) and Rs.1899090 lakh in 2009-10.Thus, the increase in the current receipts are estimated to be 16.50 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) and 33.52 percent in 2010-11 (R.E.).Tax revenue is the major source of current receipts and its share in the total current receipts are estimated to be 77.01 percent in 2011-12 (B.E.) whereas this percentage

This account deals with the current revenue and expenditure of government administrative departments. All departments, other than those which are commercial in nature, are considered as administrative for the purpose of economic classification. These include organs of the State, collection of taxes, other fiscal services, interest payments and servicing of debts, administrative services like police, jails, supply and disposal, pensions, social security and welfare and relief on account of natural calamities etc. and economic services like agriculture, animal husbandry, industries and community development. The management of expenditure of various funds like those of famine relief funds etc are also included. The current expenditure of administrative departments consists of the final outlays of government on current account which represent government’s current consumption. Besides, final outlays government makes transfer payments, such as interest, grants, subsidies etc., to the rest of the economy which are added indirectly to the disposable income of the community. To meet these current expenditures, government appropriates a part of the income of the community through a variety of taxes, miscellaneous fees, etc., accruing in the course of administration. In addition, government has an investment income from property and entrepreneurship and also receives revenue grants, contributions and recoveries from the Union Government and the rest of the economy. The excess of current receipt over current expenditure denotes the ‘Saving’ of the Government administration available for domestic capital formation.

historical chameleons: The case of the United States.” In Jon Pierre, ed. Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998, pp. 52–70. Bomerstein, Phil. 2002. “Legislative Opportunities and Impediments- The Virginia Experience.” Commonwealth Competition Council Presentation delivered to NCPPP Conference, Philadelphia June 5, 2002. Davis, Perry, ed. 1986. Public-Private Partnerships: Improving Urban Life. New York: Academy of Political Science, in conjunction with the New York City Partnership. Dowall, David E. 1990. “The public real estate development process.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 5(4): 504(9). Erberts, Randall W., and George A. Erickcek. 2002. “The Role of Partnerships in Economic Development and Labor Markets in the United States.” W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Staff Working Paper 02-75. Freilich, Robert. 1985. “Public Private Partnerships in Large-Scale Development Projects,” in Barbara Weiss, ed. (1985). Public-private partnerships: Financing a common wealth. Washington, DC: Government Finance Research Center, Government Finance Officers Association. Ghere, Richard K. 1996. “Aligning the ethics of public-private partnership: the issue of local economic development.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 6(4): 599–622. Ghere, Richard K. 2001. “Ethical Futures and Public-Private Partnerships: Peering Far Down the Track.” Public Organization Review, 1(3): 303–19. Grant, Robert, and Robert W. Hall. 1998. “Public-Private Partnerships Roles in Economic Development.” Economic Development Commentary, Spring 1998. http://www.iedconline.org/commentary_spring98.html#6 35 Greater Philadelphia First. 2002. “GPF Proposes Public-Private Partnership Strategy and Financial Plan for Schuylkill Valley Metrorail: Formation of New Regional Public Authority Recommended.” Press Release, Norristown, PA. (February 28, 2002) http://www.gpfirst.com/022802.htm

Jamison, David 1982. “The Emerging Public-Private Partnership,” in Bearse, Peter, ed., Mobilizing Capital, New York: Elsevier

Kayden, Jerold S. 2002. “Public and Private Development.” Harvard Graduate School of Design Course Syllabus, GSD 5103 / KSG HUT-268, Spring 2002 Kennedy, Sheila S., and Mark S. Rosentraub. 2000. “Public-private partnerships, professional sports teams, and the protection of the public’s interest.” American Review of Public Administration, 30(4): 436–59. Kotin, Allan, and Richard Peiser. 1997. “Public-private joint ventures for high volume retailers: who benefits?” Urban Studies, 34(12): 1091(16).