Relevance : GS Paper II
Context
Suggestions have been made to have a relook at design of centrally sponsored schemes (CSS).
State should contribute to CSS
- If the Union government is required to contribute to CSS in the State List, why should states not contribute to items in the Union List like defence.
- A relook is needed at the Seventh Schedule.
The seventh schedule: not caste in stone
- Few amendments have already taken place in the Seventh Schedule.
- The 42nd amendment transferred five subjects from the State List to the Concurrent List.
The rationale behind Central Sector Schemes (CSS)
- States have comparative advantage in providing certain services according to the varied preferences of the people.
- Efficient provision of certain public services requires subsidisation.
- Schemes by Centre on subjects in the State List provides electoral benefits to former.
Some issues with CSS
- These schemes have expiry dates, but they are never folded up and always get repackaged.
- Each of the schemes has multiple objectives and service delivery standards are not clearly defined.
- Consultations with states in designing the schemes is hardly done.
Can states pay for expenditure on items in the Union List?
- Article 282 has this provision.
- However, defence is a national public good and hence it becomes the primary responsibility of the Centre.
- The states simply do not have the resources to spend beyond the subjects in their domain.
Way forward
- There should be consultations in formulating, designing and closing CSS down.
- States should have substantial flexibility to ensure that the schemes benefit the targeted groups.
