Fiscal Health Index -2025

Choose Report Type

Publication Date

Fri, 01/24/2025 - 12:13

Report Upload

Download (6.99 MB)

vertical

Economics & Finance-I

PDF Text

FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
For the Financial Year 2023
2025 NITI Aayog
Government of India 
Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, India
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX, Annual Report for the Financial Year 2023
Copyright@ NITI Aayog, 2025
Published: January 2025 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
For the Financial Year 2023
2025


Dr. Anoop Singh
Distinguished Fellow
National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog)
Government of India

Foreword
India was among the first emerging economies to adopt fiscal rules, beginning with Karnataka
in 2002, followed by the Central Government in 2003, and subsequently other States. This
framework generally improved fiscal discipline although, as the 15
th
Finance Commission
noted, fiscal rules don’t work unless the public financial management (PFM) framework
provides consistent reporting of the fiscal indicators that form the fiscal rules. As fiscal
decentralization has deepened, the financial dynamics of states have gained critical importance,
signalling the imperative of adopting best practice standards in systematic, consistent, and
reporting of fiscal date by the Union and the States.
In India, states account for close to two-thirds of general government expenditure and collect
one-third of general government revenues. They also enjoy some autonomy in resource
mobilization, including domestic market borrowing consistent with Article 293 of India’s
Constitution. The fiscal health of Indian states has, thus, become increasingly significant in
achieving macroeconomic stability, shaping their business environment, enhancing public
service delivery, and addressing region-specific needs. However, rising fiscal deficits,
unbalanced expenditures, and increasing off-budget liabilities highlight the urgent need for
consistent and transparent fiscal management practices.
NITI Aayog’s introduction of the Fiscal Health Index (FHI) marks a key step in this direction.
Beyond being a ranking tool, the FHI provides a systematic framework for assessing fiscal
health through reported key indicators, fostering accountability, and promoting best practices
across states. However, to be accurate in the assessment and ranking of states, the institutional
W&Dframework needs to be developed to remove remaining gaps in the production, collation,
coordination, and publication of states’ fiscal data. Once this is in place, the monitoring of state
finances through the FHI will help identify fiscal vulnerabilities and promote transparency in
public financial management—enabling the benchmarking of states’ fiscal performance.
I congratulate the Economics & Finance – 1 team for their meticulous efforts in preparing this
index and cautioning on the parallel need for best practice reforms in public financial
management. By offering such a framework for assessing state finances, it will serve as a
valuable tool to promote transparency, track progress, and address fiscal challenges effectively.

New Delhi
December 2024


Anoop Singh
.

Executive Summary
Abbreviations���������������������������������������������������������������������������3
A. Introduction�������������������������������������������������������������������������4
B. Studies on State Finances: A Brief Review������������6
C. Defining Variables and Data Interpretation���������10
D. Methodology���������������������������������������������������������������������14
E. Results����������������������������������������������������������������������������������18
F. State-wise Analysis���������������������������������������������������������32
G. Appendix�����������������������������������������������������������������������������76
TABLE OF CONTENTS FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023
Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational
State-wise Composite FHI Score Heatmap
Himalayan and North-Eastern States have not been considered


State-wise Composite FHI Score Heatmap
Himalayan and North-Eastern States have not been considered Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fiscal Health Index (FHI) initiative by NITI Aayog aimed to evolve an
understanding of the fiscal health of states in India. The FHI analysis covers eighteen
major states that drive the Indian economy in terms of their contribution to India’s
GDP, demography, total public expenditure, revenues, and overall fiscal stability. As
states are responsible for approximately two-thirds of public spending and one-
third of total revenue, their fiscal performance is important for the country’s overall
economic stability. The FHI offers a systematic approach to assess the state’s fiscal
health, identify areas for improvement, and promote best practices across states.
The report objectively evaluates each state’s fiscal health through a composite
index, facilitating comparisons and benchmarking against best practices.
The composite FHI has been developed using data from the Comptroller and Auditor
General (CAG), focusing on five sub-indices: Quality of Expenditure, Revenue
Mobilization, Fiscal Prudence, Debt Index, and Debt Sustainability. Furthermore,
based on the five key sub-indices, a comprehensive state-wise analysis is reported
to bring out state-specific fiscal health issues. This analysis is supported by graphs
that illustrate the trends of major fiscal indicators from the financial year 2014-
15 to 2022-23. This detailed examination highlights individual state performances
and provides valuable insights into broader fiscal trends, allowing for a better
understanding of fiscal health across the country.
The analysis clearly highlights that strong revenue mobilization, effective expenditure
management, and prudent fiscal practices are critical determinants of success.
The top five high-performing states are Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Jharkhand,
and Gujarat, while the aspirational five are Haryana, Kerala, West Bengal, Andhra
Pradesh, and Punjab. However, the states’ performance varies across the five sub-
categories. For instance, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have a good score under Quality
of Expenditure, but they rank lower with regard to Revenue Mobilization. Karnataka
performs well across most indices but it ranks amongst the three aspirational
states in Debt Sustainability. Odisha and Chhattisgarh have performed well under
Revenue Mobilization, with their Own Non-Tax Revenue growing significantly due
to high revenue collection from mining. However, regarding Debt Sustainability,
Chhattisgarh ranks lower compared to some other states.
The fiscal landscape across states reveals a picture where progress and challenges
coexist. As states navigate their unique fiscal challenges, the path forward hinges on
a commitment to transparency, enhanced tax compliance, and targeted investments
in social and economic infrastructure. By fostering a culture of fiscal prudence and
accountability, states can stabilize their economies and elevate the quality of life
for their citizens, ensuring a resilient and prosperous future. High persistent deficits
and varying fiscal performances among states underscore the urgency for reform
and targeted interventions. The journey toward fiscal sustainability is complex, but
with concerted efforts, it can lead to transformative outcomes that benefit all. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 2 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 3
AJNIFM Arun Jaitley National Institute of Financial Management
APAndhra Pradesh
BFRBMBihar Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
BHBihar
CAGComptroller and Auditor General of India
CAGRCompound Annual Growth Rate
CAPEXCapital Expenditure
CHChhattisgarh
FDFiscal Deficit
FHIFiscal Health Index
FPIFiscal Performance Index
FRBMFiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
FSRIFiscal Self Reliance and Improvement Index
FYFinancial Year
GAGoa
GFRBMGoa Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
GJGujarat
GSDPGross State Domestic Product
GSTGoods and Services Tax
HRHaryana
IPInterest Payments
IPRRIInterest Payments to Revenue Receipts Index
JHJharkhand
KAKarnataka
KLKerala
MHMaharashtra
MPMadhya Pradesh
MTFPSMedium Term Fiscal Policy Statement
NENorth Eastern
NSENational Stock Exchange
ODOdisha
PBPunjab
PSUsPublic Sector Undertakings
RBIReserve Bank of India
RDRevenue Deficit
RJRajasthan
RRRevenue Receipts
SGSTState Goods and Services Tax
SONTRState Own Non-Tax Revenue
SSIState of States Index
TGTelangana
TNTamil Nadu
UPUttar Pradesh
UPFRBM Uttar Pradesh Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
VATValue-added Tax
WBWest Bengal
Abbreviations FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 4
SECTION A
INTRODUCTION Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 5
A. Introduction
Balanced regional development is vital for India’s economic stability and growth,
with each state playing a crucial role in managing public spending and revenue.
The Fiscal Health Index (FHI) evaluates states on expenditure quality, revenue
mobilization, fiscal prudence, debt index and debt sustainability. This index aims
to help policymakers identify areas for reform and promote best practices across
states.
The health of state finances has gained significant prominence, as fiscal well-being is
essential for achieving long-term fiscal sustainability and over-all economic growth.
States account for two-thirds of public spending and one-third of total revenue. The
Indian Constitution assigns states, significant responsibilities in development and
infrastructure, making their fiscal performance critical to the nation’s development
and stability. Variations in fiscal performance between states and the centre affect
national fiscal stability, highlighting the importance of maintaining sound fiscal
operations at the state level. The fiscal landscape across states reveals a picture where
progress and challenges coexist. Monitoring the fiscal health of states is essential for
ensuring financial stability, sustainable growth, and effective governance. It helps
assess debt sustainability, fiscal deficits, and the efficient allocation of resources
toward key sectors like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
To assess state financial performance, a Fiscal Health Index (FHI) has been formulated
in the report. This index evaluates states on five indicators: Quality of Expenditure,
Revenue Mobilization, Fiscal Prudence, Debt Index and Debt Sustainability. The FHI
provides a systematic approach for measuring state-level fiscal performance. By
incorporating these dimensions, the FHI offers a comprehensive overview of state
finances. This detailed examination highlights individual state performances and
also provides valuable insights into broader fiscal trends over time, allowing for a
better understanding of fiscal health across the country.
The Fiscal Health Index (FHI) is designed to assist policymakers by offering insights
into state fiscal health, helping identify areas requiring intervention and supporting
the formulation of fiscal policies and reforms. By evaluating and showcasing the
performance of different states, the FHI aims to promote the adoption of effective
fiscal management strategies and lead to improved fiscal discipline across states.
This, in turn, will support the broader economic goals of the country and ensure
long-term economic resilience and equitable development. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 6
SECTION B
STUDIES ON STATE
FINANCES:
A BRIEF REVIEW Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 7
B. Studies on State Finances: A Brief Review
Several studies have been conducted in the past to evaluate the fiscal health of
states. Below are some of the most recent and relevant studies on this topic.
Mohanty and Mishra’s paper (2016) primarily proposes creation of a composite
Fiscal Performance Index (FPI) for 17 non-special category states for the period
2003-04 to 2014-15 to assess the progress of the states in India in terms of fiscal
parameters. The major sub-indices deployed are- Deficit Index, Revenue Efficiency
Index, Expenditure Quality Index, Debt Index, and Debt Sustainability Index. Both
Relative Distance Method and Z-Score Method are employed to build this index.
The study reveals significant inter-state variation in the level of FPI and a persistent
deterioration in FPI levels
1
.
The Confederation of Indian Industry’s 2019 discussion paper on the fiscal condition
of the central government and all states proposed a tool to evaluate Revenue and
Capital Expenditure quality through the FPI. The FPI includes six major sub-indices:
Quality of Revenue Expenditure, Quality of Capital Expenditure, Quality of Revenue,
Degree of Fiscal Prudence 1, Degree of Fiscal Prudence 2, and the Debt Index,
covering the period from 2004-05 to 2017-18. The analysis indicated that at the
central level, despite improvements in the Fiscal Deficit index from 2012-13 to 2017-
18, the composite fiscal performance index remained relatively stable, with some
improvement in 2015-16 and 2016-17. This was primarily due to moderation in the
indices of revenue and capital expenditure and net tax revenue. At the level of all
states, despite a significant decline in the Fiscal and Revenue Deficit indices from
2014-15 onwards, the composite FPI index showed improvement, driven mainly by
gains in the revenue, capital expenditure, and revenue receipt indices
2
.
Archana Dholakia’s paper (2005) proposes a composite index called the FPI to
measure the fiscal performance of Indian states. Recognizing the limitations of
using a single indicator to assess fiscal discipline, the study advocates for a more
comprehensive approach that incorporates multiple indicators. The index comprises
of three major component indices: the Deficit Index, Own Revenue Effort Index,
and Expenditure and Debt Repayment Index. Empirical estimates of the index for
various states reveal a declining trend in fiscal performance during the post-reform
era. This decline is evident across major states, regardless of their per capita income
levels. A comparison of the index with the Fiscal Self Reliance and Improvement
Index (FSRI) used by the Eleventh Finance Commission reveals discrepancies in their
rankings, suggesting that the FSRI cannot serve as a substitute for the index under
consideration. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for a multidimensional
index to accurately gauge fiscal discipline and provide clear improvement indicators
or states
3
.
1
Mohanty, A. R., & Mishra, B. R. (2016). Fiscal performance index of the states in India. Prajnan, 45(3), 247-266.
2
Confederation of Indian Industries. (2019, May). Measuring Fiscal Marksmanship: Is Fiscal Deficit the only
3
Dholakia, A. (2005). Measuring fiscal performance of states: an alternative approach. Economic and Political Weekly, 3421-3428. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 8
The 2024 working paper by Sudipto Mundle and Manish Gupta examines the fiscal
performance of India’s central and state governments post-COVID-19, comparing it
to a pre-pandemic baseline. The key indicators are Own Revenue Receipts, Capital
Expenditure, Social Service Expenditure, Committed Expenditure as a proportion
of Total Expenditure and Fiscal Deficit and Debt as a Proportion of GSDP of the
state for the years between 2019-20 and 2024-25. It highlights key fiscal trends,
including fiscal consolidation, capital expenditure, and tax revenue growth, focusing
on whether governments have recovered from the pandemic’s economic shock.
The analysis uses a developmental taxonomy to classify states based on per capita
income and life expectancy, comparing fiscal discipline, revenue mobilization, and
expenditure patterns across different state groups. The findings show a mixed
recovery, with buoyant tax revenues but concerns about rising public debt and
uneven fiscal discipline among states. It is further reported that there is a lack of a
clear relationship between developmental outcomes and fiscal performance
4
.
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has also carried out a study analysing the fiscal health
of eleven Himalayan states/Union Territories for the period from 2010-11 to 2023-
24. The key components of the index are Deficit, Revenue Performance, Quality of
Expenditure, Debt Burden and Debt Sustainability. The study reports a rise in the
fiscal stress, experienced by Himalayan States which is contributed by the deficit
and debt sustainability indicators. Further, their capacity to raise revenue remains
constrained due to their geographical structure and hence public expenditure plays
a crucial role in their development. The quality of expenditure has also seen an
improvement in the recent years
5
.
The Arun Jaitley National Institute of Financial Management (AJNIFM) has
constructed a weighted index for analysing state fiscal health for a period of 10
years from 2011- 12 to 2021-22 for states divided under two categories: major and
vulnerable states. It covers 23 parameters grouped under six categories- Resources,
Expenditure, Debt, Deficit, Contingent Liability and Overspending.
The National Stock Exchange (NSE) report (2020) analyses the disparities in
development among Indian states, constructing a “State of States Index” (SSI) based
on six key dimensions: Fiscal Health, Agricultural Productivity, Non-Agricultural
Sectors, Human Development, Infrastructure, and Financial Inclusion. Each dimension
is evaluated using multiple indicators, such as revenue and expenditure patterns
for fiscal health, and per capita GSDP for non-agricultural sectors. States are then
ranked into categories from excellent to poor. The findings highlight widening
inequalities, with richer states outperforming others due to better infrastructure,
financial inclusion, and human development outcomes
6
.
CareEdge Ratings, a credit rating agency, have also published the first edition of their
report titled States’ Ranking, 2023
7
. The report ranks Indian states based on seven
pillars—Economic, Fiscal, Financial Inclusion, Social, Infrastructure, Governance, and
4
Mundle, S., & Gupta, M. (2024). Fiscal performance of the Central government and the States of India (No. 24/412).
5
Rawat, P. S., Yadav, E. A., & Mukherjee, A. Fiscal Performance of Himalayan States/Union Territories.
6
Economic Policy and Research, National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. (NSE). (2020a). State of Indian states.
7
CareEdge Ratings. State’s Ranking 2023. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 9
Environment—using 46 indicators. These indicators cover aspects like GSDP, Fiscal
Deficit, financial services access, literacy, and air quality. States are ranked under
two categories: Large States and North-East, Hilly & Small States. The methodology
normalizes indicator scores on a 0-100 scale, with higher weights assigned to
economic performance and different weights assigned to the sub-indices.
Based on these studies, the Fiscal Health Index (FHI) has been designed in this
report to assess state performance, evaluating states across key pillars of fiscal
prudence. Additionally, the analysis includes state-specific insights, highlighting
the unique fiscal characteristics of each state. The analysis not only examines the
current fiscal situation but also analyses trends over the past 9-10 years.
This composite index evaluates states across five key indicators: Quality of
Expenditure, Revenue Mobilization, Fiscal Prudence, Debt Index and Debt
Sustainability, which are important to analyse the state’s fiscal position. By
incorporating these dimensions, the FHI offers a comprehensive overview of state
finances and provides a systematic and objective framework for evaluating fiscal
performance at the state level. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 10
SECTION C
DEFINING
VARIABLES & DATA
INTERPRETATION Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 11
C. Defining Variables & Data Interpretation
The data used to calculate the Fiscal Health Index (major variables & sub-components
under each variable) is sourced from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
A comprehensive overview of budgetary transactions for all states for the period
2022-23 is utilized for index calculation and subsequent analysis. Additionally, past
analysis for different periods between 2014-15 to 2021-22 has been provided in the
“Appendix” section of the report.
Five Major Sub-Indices are aggregated to form the Fiscal Health Index. The Sub-
Indices are as below:
MAJOR SUB-INDICESMINOR SUB-INDICES
1. Quality of Expenditure
1.1 Total Developmental Expenditure/Total
Expenditure
1.2 Total Capital Outlay/ GSDP*
2. Revenue Mobilization
2.1
State Own Revenue/ GSDP*
2.2 State Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure
3. Fiscal Prudence
3.1
Gross Fiscal Deficit/ GSDP*
3.2 Revenue Deficit/ GSDP*
4. Debt Index
4.1 Interest Payments/Revenue Receipts
4.2 Outstanding Liabilities/ GSDP*
5. Debt Sustainability
5.1 Growth Rate of GSDP* – Growth Rate of
Interest Payments
GSDP at current prices for the year 2022-23
The detailed description of the five major sub-indices and their respective minor
sub-indices is elaborated below.
1. Quality of Expenditure 
Developmental expenditure refers to government spending aimed at fostering
long-term economic growth and improving infrastructure or social services, such
as building schools or hospitals.
Non-developmental expenditure involves routine spending necessary for
maintaining current government functions and services, like paying salaries and
covering operational costs.
• Total Developmental Expenditure/Total Expenditure: This ratio measures
the proportion of a government’s total spending that is allocated to
developmental activities. This metric is useful for assessing the effectiveness
and priorities of a government’s budgetary policies.
• Total Capital Outlay/GSDP: This ratio measures how much of the state’s
economic resources are being directed towards capital projects, such as FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 12
infrastructure, facilities, and other long-term investments. This assesses how
effectively a state is leveraging its economic output for long-term benefits.
2. Revenue Mobilisation 
• State Own Revenue/GSDP: This ratio reflects the state’s ability to generate
revenue independently without relying heavily on central government transfers
or grants. It provides insights into a state’s financial sustainability and its
capacity to fund its own developmental and operational needs.
• State Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure : This ratio indicates how much of
the state’s expenditures are covered by its own revenues, reflecting fiscal
independence.
3. Fiscal Prudence
Fiscal Deficit: A Fiscal Deficit occurs when a government’s spending surpasses
its income. It shows the gap between total revenue and total expenditure. This
difference is the amount needed to borrow.
Revenue Deficit: Revenue Deficit occurs when the government’s income receipts
are insufficient to cover its operating expenditures, necessitating borrowing to
fund its operations.
• Gross Fiscal Deficit/GSDP: A higher ratio may signal potential concerns
regarding the sustainability of the state’s debt levels, as it suggests that the
state is borrowing (usually financed by public or foreign entities) significantly
relative to its economic size.
• Revenue Deficit/GSDP: A high ratio indicates that the state is not generating
enough revenue to meet its operating expenditure and relies on borrowing
(financed by deficit financing) to finance its activities and has potential risk
to state budget.
4. Debt Index 
• Interest Payments/ Revenue Receipt: The ratio of interest payments to
Revenue Receipts (IP/RR) indicating the percentage of Revenue Receipts
used for interest payment on account of outstanding debt. It indicates how
much of the state’s interest payments are financed from Revenue Receipts
and represents the debt servicing position of the state. A high IPRRI indicates
that the state is spending a significant amount of its revenue on debt servicing,
which can be a sign of impending financial stress.
• Outstanding Liabilities/GSDP: This ratio indicates how much of the Gross State
Domestic Product (GSDP) is taken up by debt stock. It reflects the debt burden
of the state. A high ratio indicates that the state is heavily indebted.
5. Debt Sustainability: 
• Growth Rate of GSDP - Growth Rate of Interest Payments: A positive
difference suggests a healthy economic environment where the state can
manage its debt, while a negative difference indicates a growing fiscal stress
and potential challenges in managing public finances. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 13 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 14
SECTION D
METHODOLOGY Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 15
D. Methodology
The composite fiscal health index for 18 major states
8
has been calculated using
the data from the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). The period of
the analysis is Financial Year 2022-23. A detailed, step-by-step explanation of each
state’s FHI score calculation is given as follows:
• The study identifies five major sub-indices to calculate the composite FHI
index and assess states’ fiscal health. The five major sub-indices are Quality
of Expenditure, Revenue Mobilization, Fiscal Prudence, Debt Index, and Debt
Sustainability.
• Further, nine minor sub-indices are developed, based on specific fiscal metrics,
that reflect key aspects of fiscal performance. These minor sub-indices are
categorized under the five major sub-indices mentioned above. Four major
sub-indices have two fiscal indicators, except the Debt Sustainability index,
which has only one fiscal indicator.
• The values obtained from these minor sub-indices are then standardized
through normalization, based on the following:
The minor sub-indices are classified into one of two categories: the
Improvement Index or the Deprivation Index, as defined below:
oImprovement index: Improvement Index is a favorable index where
higher values of the variable are rewarded. The Improvement Index is
constructed in such a way that the higher the ratio for a state, greater
the index value assigned to it. The minor sub-indices under Quality of
expenditure, Revenue Mobilization, and Debt Sustainability are considered
as improvement indices.
Improvement Index for a state i = ,
Where,
Xi is the value for the particular minor sub-index under Quality of
Expenditure, Revenue Mobilization and Debt Sustainability.
Min(X) is the minimum value for the particular minor sub-index across all
states in the specified period.
The target value (Target(X)) is the highest value (of the maximum of all
the states in each year) observed over the past 9 years.
oDeprivation Index: A Deprivation Index is a deteriorating index where
lower values of the variable are rewarded. The index is constructed in
such a way that the lower the ratio for a state, greater the index value
assigned to it. The minor sub-indices under Fiscal Prudence and Debt
Index are considered as Deprivation Indices.
,
8
18 major states are focused in the study as they are more comparable, while excluding special category and Himalayan states due to
their distinct geographical, economic, and fiscal characteristics. This allows for a more consistent analysis of economic trends across
comparable regions FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 16
Deprivation Index for a state i =
Where,
Xi is the value for the particular minor sub-index under Fiscal Prudence
and Debt Index.
Max(X) is the maximum value for the particular minor sub-index across all
states in the specified period.
The target value (Target(X)) is the lowest value (of the minimum of all the
states in each year) observed over the past 9 years.
• The major sub-indices are then computed by taking arithmetic mean of the
normalized values of the corresponding minor sub-indices for each state.
For example, the value for the major sub-index “Quality of Expenditure” is
the arithmetic mean of the normalized values of its associated minor sub-
indices, viz Total Developmental Expenditure/Total Expenditure & Total
Capital Outlay/GSDP.
• The final composite FHI score is computed by taking the arithmetic mean of
the five major sub-indices computed in the above step. For instance, the FHI
score for Gujarat is the arithmetic mean of the values for its five major sub-
indices.
• Finally, states are ranked based on their computed FHI scores, with the top-
performing state receiving the first rank. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 17 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 18
SECTION E
RESULTS Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 19
E. Results
E.1 Final Ranking of States for 2022-23
States
FHI
Score
Rank
2022-
23
Quality of
Expenditure
Revenue
Mobilization
Fiscal
Prudence
Debt
Index
Debt Sus-
tainability
Odisha 67.81 52.0 69.9 54.0 99.0 64.0
Chhattisgarh55.22 55.1 56.5 56.0 79.6 29.0
Goa 53.63 45.5 87.1 59.4 51.0 25.2
Jharkhand 51.64 47.3 45.7 62.4 66.9 35.7
Gujarat 50.55 40.0 48.7 52.7 69.0 42.0
Maharashtra50.36 37.1 59.1 41.8 76.4 36.8
Uttar Pradesh45.97 45.8 34.6 44.7 59.9 44.5
Telangana 43.68 36.9 75.2 40.8 53.3 11.7
Madhya
Pradesh 42.29 59.7 27.6 35.6 61.0 27.2
Karnataka 40.810 47.4 43.9 43.9 62.2 6.7
Tamil Nadu29.211 32.0 41.2 25.8 36.0 11.1
Rajasthan 28.612 38.3 35.4 19.9 32.3 16.8
Bihar 27.813 56.1 5.3 11.5 47.2 18.8
Haryana 27.414 24.8 47.8 26.1 24.1 14.3
Kerala 25.415 4.2 54.2 34.0 23.1 11.3
West Bengal21.816 32.3 12.4 25.4 18.3 20.6
Andhra
Pradesh 20.917 31.4 22.1 13.3 37.8 0.0
Punjab 10.718 4.7 28.1 5.6 0.0 15.2 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 20

Achiever
Front Runner
Performer
Aspirational
State-wise Composite FHI Score Heatmap
Himalayan and North-Eastern States have not been considered


CI/^}Œ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs —Œƒ”ƒ–w ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡”ƒŽƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsx
‘ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ‹Šƒ”su †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsy
Šƒ”Šƒ†v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒz ƒ”›ƒƒsv —Œƒ„sz
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Š{
ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr


&]oWεv


ZÀvµD}]o]Ìš]}v
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
‘ƒs ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒv ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
‡Žƒ‰ƒƒt ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šw ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
†‹•Šƒu ‡”ƒŽƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‹Šƒ”sz
—Œƒ”ƒ–y ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šsu
ƒ”›ƒƒz —Œƒ„sv
Šƒ”Šƒ†{ ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw


…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
Šƒ”Šƒ†s ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šx ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsr ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsv
‘ƒt ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒy ‡”ƒŽƒss ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒz ƒ”›ƒƒst †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
†‹•Šƒv ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‹Šƒ”sy
—Œƒ”ƒ–w —Œƒ„sz

CI/^}Œ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs —Œƒ”ƒ–w ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡”ƒŽƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsx
‘ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ‹Šƒ”su †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsy
Šƒ”Šƒ†v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒz ƒ”›ƒƒsv —Œƒ„sz
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Š{
ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr


&]oWεv


ZÀvµD}]o]Ìš]}v
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
‘ƒs ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒv ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
‡Žƒ‰ƒƒt ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šw ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
†‹•Šƒu ‡”ƒŽƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‹Šƒ”sz
—Œƒ”ƒ–y ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šsu
ƒ”›ƒƒz —Œƒ„sv
Šƒ”Šƒ†{ ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw


…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
Šƒ”Šƒ†s ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šx ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsr ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsv
‘ƒt ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒy ‡”ƒŽƒss ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒz ƒ”›ƒƒst †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
†‹•Šƒv ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‹Šƒ”sy
—Œƒ”ƒ–w —Œƒ„sz

CI/^}Œ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs —Œƒ”ƒ–w ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡”ƒŽƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsx
‘ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ‹Šƒ”su †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsy
Šƒ”Šƒ†v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒz ƒ”›ƒƒsv —Œƒ„sz
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Š{
ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr


&]oWεv


ZÀvµD}]o]Ìš]}v
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
‘ƒs ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒv ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
‡Žƒ‰ƒƒt ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šw ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
†‹•Šƒu ‡”ƒŽƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‹Šƒ”sz
—Œƒ”ƒ–y ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šsu
ƒ”›ƒƒz —Œƒ„sv
Šƒ”Šƒ†{ ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw


…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
Šƒ”Šƒ†s ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šx ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsr ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsv
‘ƒt ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒy ‡”ƒŽƒss ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒz ƒ”›ƒƒst †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
†‹•Šƒv ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‹Šƒ”sy
—Œƒ”ƒ–w —Œƒ„sz

CI/^}Œ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs —Œƒ”ƒ–w ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡”ƒŽƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsx
‘ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ‹Šƒ”su †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsy
Šƒ”Šƒ†v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒz ƒ”›ƒƒsv —Œƒ„sz
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Š{
ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr


&]oWεv


ZÀvµD}]o]Ìš]}v
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
‘ƒs ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒv ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
‡Žƒ‰ƒƒt ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šw ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
†‹•Šƒu ‡”ƒŽƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‹Šƒ”sz
—Œƒ”ƒ–y ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šsu
ƒ”›ƒƒz —Œƒ„sv
Šƒ”Šƒ†{ ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw


…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
Šƒ”Šƒ†s ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šx ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsr ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsv
‘ƒt ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒy ‡”ƒŽƒss ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒz ƒ”›ƒƒst †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
†‹•Šƒv ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‹Šƒ”sy
—Œƒ”ƒ–w —Œƒ„sz

State wise score for heatmap and rationale for categorization is provided in the Appendix
State-wise Composite FHI Score Heatmap Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 21
Findings
• Odisha excels in fiscal health with the highest overall index score of 67.8. It
tops the Debt Index (99.0) and Debt Sustainability (64.0) rankings with better
than average scores under Quality of Expenditure and Revenue Mobilization.
The state has maintained low Fiscal Deficits, a good debt profile, and an
above average Capital Outlay/GSDP ratio.
• Chhattisgarh and Goa follow, with scores of 55.2 and 53.6, respectively.
Chhattisgarh stands out for its Debt Index, while Goa stands for Revenue
Mobilization. Both states have effectively balanced expenditure with revenue,
contributing to Fiscal Prudence.
• Goa, Telangana and Odisha are leading in Revenue Mobilization and Fiscal
Prudence. In addition, it was observed that Odisha, Jharkhand, Goa, and
Chhattisgarh have effectively mobilized non-tax sources. Their Own Non-
Tax Revenue as a percentage of Total Revenue was, on average, at 21%,
with Odisha relying heavily on mining-linked premiums and Chhattisgarh
benefitting from coal block auctions. Punjab and West Bengal have not
performed well in Revenue Mobilization. This gap highlights the disparity in
states’ abilities to generate revenue and manage fiscal policies effectively,
influencing their overall fiscal health and economic resilience.
• Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Kerala lie in the aspirational
category, each facing significant fiscal challenges. Kerala and Punjab struggle
with low Quality of Expenditure and Debt Sustainability, while West Bengal
faces Revenue Mobilization and Debt Index issues. Andhra Pradesh has high
Fiscal Deficits, and Haryana has a poor debt profile. While debt growth and
rising interest payments present fiscal challenges, these regions continue to
navigate their financial landscapes with varied strategies.
• States have varied approaches to Capital Expenditure. For Madhya Pradesh,
Odisha, Goa, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh, the Capital Expenditure, on
average, constituted 27% of the total Developmental Expenditure, while West
Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, and Rajasthan, on average, allocated only
around 10% of the total Developmental Expenditure to Capital Expenditure.
For Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, the overall share of Capital Expenditure
in Total Expenditure reflects fluctuations in long-term investment.
• It must be noted that the top states witness good scores under the Debt
Index and Debt Sustainability, reflecting that these states have effective
fiscal management practices and may have no risk of default on debt. States
like West Bengal and Punjab witnessed growing debt burdens, increasing
debt-to-GSDP ratios and raising serious concerns about debt sustainability. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 22



E.2 Comparative Ranking of States for 2022-23, Average for 2014-15 to 2018-19 & Average for 2014-15 to 2021-22
Graph 1 A.
Note: The Average FHI score for 2014-15 to 2018-19 and 2014-15 to 2021-22 has been calculated by taking the average of the
values for minor sub-indices for all the years and using the same methodology as stated above in the Methodology section. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 23
Graph 1 B. State-wise FHI Rank Comparison: 2022-23 vs Average for 2014-15 to
2021-22
Findings
• Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Goa, and Gujarat have consistently been the top-
performing states across all time periods considered in the study.
• Jharkhand has shown improvement in its fiscal health. It achieved rank 4 in
2022-23, significantly improving from rank 10 in the period 2015-19 to 2021-
2022. This improvement is driven by better Revenue Mobilization, enhanced
Fiscal prudence, and stronger Debt Sustainability.
• Karnataka experienced a decline in rankings. Its rank dropped from 3 in 2014-
15 to 2021-22 to 10 in 2022-23, primarily due to subdued performance under
Quality of Expenditure and Debt Sustainability.
• States like Goa, Telangana, and Maharashtra have strong Revenue Mobilization
across all periods. Effective tax collection systems, resource mobilization
efforts, and a balanced approach to expenditure have allowed these states
to manage their fiscal positions better.
• States like Punjab, Kerala and West Bengal are aspirational states that
have consistently faced fiscal challenges over the past nine years. These
states face high debt, large interest payments, weak revenue generation,
and inefficiencies in capital expenditure, with reliance on non-tax revenue
impacting their fiscal health and rankings.





















1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
3
10
6
2
5
7
9
8
4
13
11
17
14
12
15
16
18
Rank for FHI Score : Average for 2014-15 to 2021-22
Rank for FHI Score : 2022-23
Graph 1 B. State-wise FHI Rank Comparison: 2022-23 vs Average for 2014-15 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 24
E.3 COMPOSITE FHI SCORE RELATIONSHIP WITH SUB INDICATORS for 2022-23









20.9
27.8
55.253.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6
45.9
21.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Graph 2: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Quality of
Expenditure
Total Developmental Expenditure/ Total Expenditure Total Capital Outlay/Nominal GSDP FHI Score
20.927.8
55.2
53.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6 45.9
21.8
0
20
40
60
80
Graph 3: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Revenue Mobilization
State Own Revenue/ Nominal GSDP State Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure FHI Score
Graph 2 highlights the relationship of the FHI score with the sub-indices (Total
Developmental Expenditure/Total Expenditure and Total Capital Outlay/Nominal
GSDP) under Quality of Expenditure.
The high index value of Total Developmental Expenditure to Total Expenditure for
Chhattisgarh has contributed to a high FHI score. Similarly, the high index value
of Capital Outlay to GSDP for Odisha has played a key role in achieving a high
FHI score. Under this sub-indices, top-ranked states prioritized both social and
economic services. For instance, Madhya Pradesh allocated 41% of its Revenue
Developmental Expenditure to social services. At the same time, Chhattisgarh
maintained a higher-than-average proportion of total Developmental expenditure,
benefiting sectors such as health and education.
In some cases, the high FHI score is due to other sub-indices considered in this
study. For example, index value for quality of expenditure in terms of Developmental
Expenditure and Capital Outlay ratios for Madhya Pradesh is higher than Chhattisgarh,
but the FHI score for Chhattisgarh is higher than Madhya Pradesh. This indicates
the significant contribution of other factors to the FHI score of Chhattisgarh, such
as better performance under Revenue Mobilization, lower Fiscal Deficits, and lower
Debt/GSDP ratio. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 25

State wise Quality of Expenditure Score
Heatmap
State wise Revenue Mobilization Score
Heatmap

State wise Fiscal Prudence Score
Heatmap

State wise Debt Index Score
Heatmap

Yµo]šÇ}(Ɖv]šµŒ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šs ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒw —Œƒ”ƒ–{ —Œƒ„sy
‹Šƒ”t Šƒ”Šƒ†x ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsr ‡”ƒŽƒsz
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒss
†‹•Šƒv ‘ƒz ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒst
‡•–‡‰ƒŽsu
ƒ‹Žƒ†—sv
†Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw
ƒ”›ƒƒsx


š/vÆ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒx †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šst ƒ”›ƒƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šy ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‡”ƒŽƒsx
ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šz ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsv ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
—Œƒ”ƒ–v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ —Œƒ„sz
Šƒ”Šƒ†w ‘ƒsr
‹Šƒ”ss

State wise score for heatmap and rationale for categorization is provided in the Appendix FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 26









20.9
27.8
55.253.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6
45.9
21.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Graph 2: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Quality of
Expenditure
Total Developmental Expenditure/ Total Expenditure Total Capital Outlay/Nominal GSDP FHI Score
20.927.8
55.2
53.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6 45.9
21.8
0
20
40
60
80
Graph 3: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Revenue Mobilization
State Own Revenue/ Nominal GSDP State Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure FHI Score
Graph 3 highlights the relationship of the FHI score with the sub-indices (State
Own Revenue/ Total Expenditure and State Own Revenue/Nominal GSDP)
under Revenue Mobilization.
High index value for the State’s Own Revenue/Total Expenditure for Goa and
Gujarat have contributed to their high FHI score. Odisha, Goa, and Chhattisgarh
have effectively mobilized non-tax sources, ~ 22% of total revenues. In some
cases, the high FHI score is due to other sub-indices considered in this study.
For example, the index value of State Own Revenue/Total Expenditure for Tamil
Nadu is higher than that of Uttar Pradesh. Still, the FHI score for Uttar Pradesh
is higher than Tamil Nadu due to the contribution of other sub-indices, such as
better Quality of Expenditure and lower Fiscal Deficit. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 27

State wise Quality of Expenditure Score
Heatmap
State wise Revenue Mobilization Score
Heatmap

State wise Fiscal Prudence Score
Heatmap

State wise Debt Index Score
Heatmap

&,/^}Œ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs —Œƒ”ƒ–w ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡”ƒŽƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsx
‘ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ‹Šƒ”su †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsy
Šƒ”Šƒ†v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒz ƒ”›ƒƒsv —Œƒ„sz
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Š{
ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr


&]oWεv


ZÀvµD}]o]Ìš]}v
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
‘ƒs ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒv ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
‡Žƒ‰ƒƒt ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šw ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
†‹•Šƒu ‡”ƒŽƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‹Šƒ”sz
—Œƒ”ƒ–y ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šsu
ƒ”›ƒƒz —Œƒ„sv
Šƒ”Šƒ†{ ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw


…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
Šƒ”Šƒ†s ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šx ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsr ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsv
‘ƒt ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒy ‡”ƒŽƒss ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒz ƒ”›ƒƒst †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
†‹•Šƒv ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‹Šƒ”sy
—Œƒ”ƒ–w —Œƒ„sz

State wise score for heatmap and rationale for categorization is provided in the Appendix FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 28









20.9
27.8
55.2
53.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6
45.9
21.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Graph 4: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Fiscal Prudence
Gross Fiscal Deficit/Nominal GSDP Revenue Deficit/Nominal GSDP FHI Score
20.9
27.8
55.2
53.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6
45.9
21.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Graph 5: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Debt Index
Interest Payments/Revenue Receipts Outstanding liabilities/Nominal GSDP FHI Score
Graph 4 highlights the relationship of the FHI score with the sub-indices under
Fiscal Prudence. The high Index value of Revenue Deficit/Nominal GSDP for
Odisha, reflecting a lower revenue deficit, has contributed to its high FHI score.
Similarly, Chhattisgarh’s high index value for Gross Fiscal Deficit/Nominal GSDP,
representing a lower fiscal deficit, has also played a key role in achieving a high
FHI score. Creating revenue surpluses in states such as Odisha, Jharkhand,
and Goa have enabled allocating funds toward socio-economic sectors and
infrastructure. In some cases, the high FHI score is due to other sub-indices
considered in this study. For example, the index value of Revenue Deficit/
Nominal GSDP for Goa is lower than Jharkhand, but the FHI score for Goa is
higher than Jharkhand, indicating the significant contribution of other factors,
such as better Revenue mobilization to Goa’s FHI score. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 29

State wise Quality of Expenditure Score
Heatmap
State wise Revenue Mobilization Score
Heatmap

State wise Fiscal Prudence Score
Heatmap

State wise Debt Index Score
Heatmap

&,/^}Œ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs —Œƒ”ƒ–w ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡”ƒŽƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsx
‘ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ‹Šƒ”su †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsy
Šƒ”Šƒ†v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒz ƒ”›ƒƒsv —Œƒ„sz
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Š{
ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr


&]oWεv


ZÀvµD}]o]Ìš]}v
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
‘ƒs ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒv ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒsr †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
‡Žƒ‰ƒƒt ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šw ƒ‹Žƒ†—ss ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
†‹•Šƒu ‡”ƒŽƒx ƒŒƒ•–Šƒst ‹Šƒ”sz
—Œƒ”ƒ–y ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šsu
ƒ”›ƒƒz —Œƒ„sv
Šƒ”Šƒ†{ ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw


…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
Šƒ”Šƒ†s ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šx ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsr ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsv
‘ƒt ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒy ‡”ƒŽƒss ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒz ƒ”›ƒƒst †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsx
†‹•Šƒv ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‹Šƒ”sy
—Œƒ”ƒ–w —Œƒ„sz

State wise score for heatmap and rationale for categorization is provided in the Appendix FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 30









20.9
27.8
55.2
53.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6
45.9
21.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Graph 4: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Fiscal Prudence
Gross Fiscal Deficit/Nominal GSDP Revenue Deficit/Nominal GSDP FHI Score
20.9
27.8
55.2
53.6
50.5
27.4
51.6
40.8
25.4
42.2
50.3
67.8
10.7
28.6
29.2
43.6
45.9
21.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Graph 5: FHI Score relationship with minor sub-indices under Debt Index
Interest Payments/Revenue Receipts Outstanding liabilities/Nominal GSDP FHI Score
Graph 5 highlights the relationship of the FHI score with the sub-indices under
the Debt Index. Maharashtra’s high index value of Outstanding Liabilities/
Nominal GSDP, representing sustainable debt management, has led to a high
FHI score. Alternatively, Jharkhand’s high index value of Interest Payments/
Revenue Receipts, indicating a low fiscal burden, has also led to a high FHI
score. Certain states deal with fluctuating debt levels, while others focus on
fiscal consolidation but are pressured by high social program spending and
revenue collection challenges, impacting their debt-to-GSDP ratios.
In some cases, the high FHI score is due to other sub-indices considered in this
analysis. For e.g., the index value of Outstanding Liabilities/ Nominal GSDP for
Telangana is lower than Karnataka but the FHI score for Telangana is higher
than Karnataka. This highlights the contribution of other factors, such as better
Revenue Mobilization, to the FHI score of Telangana. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 31

State wise Quality of Expenditure Score
Heatmap
State wise Revenue Mobilization Score
Heatmap

State wise Fiscal Prudence Score
Heatmap

State wise Debt Index Score
Heatmap

State wise score for heatmap and rationale for categorization is provided in the Appendix
Yµo]šÇ}(Ɖv]šµŒ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šs ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒw —Œƒ”ƒ–{ —Œƒ„sy
‹Šƒ”t Šƒ”Šƒ†x ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsr ‡”ƒŽƒsz
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Šu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šy ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒss
†‹•Šƒv ‘ƒz ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒst
‡•–‡‰ƒŽsu
ƒ‹Žƒ†—sv
†Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šsw
ƒ”›ƒƒsx


š/vÆ
…Š‹‡˜‡” ”‘–—‡” ‡”ˆ‘”‡” •’‹”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ
†‹•Šƒs ƒ”ƒ–ƒƒx †Š”ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šst ƒ”›ƒƒsw
ŠŠƒ––‹•‰ƒ”Št ƒ†Š›ƒ”ƒ†‡•Šy ƒ‹Žƒ†—su ‡”ƒŽƒsx
ƒŠƒ”ƒ•Š–”ƒu ––ƒ””ƒ†‡•Šz ƒŒƒ•–Šƒsv ‡•–‡‰ƒŽsy
—Œƒ”ƒ–v ‡Žƒ‰ƒƒ{ —Œƒ„sz
Šƒ”Šƒ†w ‘ƒsr
‹Šƒ”ss
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 32
SECTION F
STATE-WISE
ANALYSIS Financial Year 202P
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 33
Major Sub-Indicator Score Heatmaps

State wise Quality of Expenditure Score
Heatmap
State wise Revenue Mobilization Score
Heatmap

State wise Fiscal Prudence Score
Heatmap

State wise Debt Index Score
Heatmap


State wise Quality of Expenditure Score
Heatmap
State wise Revenue Mobilization Score
Heatmap

State wise Fiscal Prudence Score
Heatmap

State wise Debt Index Score
Heatmap


State wise Debt Sustainability Score
Heatmap

State wise Quality of Expenditure Score
Heatmap
State wise Revenue Mobilization Score
Heatmap

State wise Fiscal Prudence Score
Heatmap

State wise Debt Index Score
Heatmap
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 34
The state may focus on enhancing Capital Expenditure efficiency, optimize
committed spending, diversifying revenue sources for greater resilience, and may
enforce strict fiscal discipline.
Quality of Expenditure
• Since 2018- 19 the Capital Expenditure of the State came down in both the
social services and economic services sector by 84.3% and 60.1%, respectively,
on a cumulative basis.
• The state has also been unable to achieve its budget estimates under Capital
Expenditure. Capex was 3.5% of the Total Expenditure and just 4.4% of the
total borrowings in 2022-23.
• Under the Revenue Expenditure, the quantum of Committed Expenditure
constitutes the largest share at ~51%. The Committed Expenditure increased
at an average annual rate of 11.6% in last five years. Further, Committed
Expenditure as a percentage of the Revenue Receipts increased from 57.5%
in 2018-19 to 64.6% in 2022-23 resulting in the limited availability of revenue
resources for other purposes.
Revenue Mobilization
• During the period 2018-19 to 2022-23, the State’s Own Tax Revenue grew at
a CAGR of ~6%. The ratio of State Own Tax Revenue to the Total Tax Revenue
saw a moderate growth during the same period from 64 % in 2018- 29 to 67
% in 2022-23.
• The Non-Tax Revenue over the last five-years grew at an average annual rate
of 4.3%.
• Rate of growth of Own Revenue has come down from 17.1% in 2018-19 to 9.8%
in 2022-23.
Andhra Pradesh Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 35
Fiscal Prudence
• In the past five years, the State has always been in Revenue Deficit and Fiscal
Deficit.
• As per the Andhra Pradesh Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management
(FRBM) Act, as amended from time to time, the State Government was
required to achieve certain fiscal targets by specified periods. In 2022-23 the
ratio of Fiscal Deficit to GSDP was 4% which was within the target of 4.5%.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Public Debt has been increasing on an average at a rate of 16.5% during the
period 2018-19 to 2022-23.
• Interest payments increased by 15% in 2022-23 over the previous year and by
10% CAGR from 2018-19 to 2022-23. Ratio of Interest Payments to Revenue
Receipts has shown increased trend from 2018-19 to 2020-21; and slightly
reduced during 2022-23 due to increased Revenue Receipts.













?X?9
?X?9
íXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
vZŒWŒZ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9ìXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
ðXí9
?X?9
ðXì9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9??X?9
íïXð9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
??9
ðñ9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 36
State may expedite revenue collection, progress ongoing projects, and restructure
loans to maintain interest payments within Fiscal Deficit targets for improved fiscal
health.
Quality of Expenditure
• Capital Expenditure has grown at a CAGR of 8.4% over the last 5-year period.
It was around 14% as a proportion of total expenditure in 2022-23.
• For 2022-23, Capital Expenditure on social and economic services constituted
13% of Total Expenditure, while they constitute 40.6% and 18.2% of total
Revenue Expenditure.
oUnder social Services there was 54.6% reduction in assistance to Non-
Government Colleges, a drastic 98.3% cut in Other Adult Education
Programmes, and notable decreases in funding for health initiatives.
oUnder economic Services there was 305% rise in training under Other
Rural Development Programmes, a 1,360% increase in Irrigation and Flood
Control, and significant growth in tourism spending.
• The State had incurred 34.3% of the Total Revenue Expenditure on committed
liabilities like salaries and wages, pensions, interest payments, leaving only
65.7% for priority sector expenditure in 2022-23.
Revenue Mobilization
• The overall share of the State’s Own Tax Revenue in the GSDP was 5.8% during
2022-23 and has grown at a CAGR of 8.4% over last 5 years. Own Tax Revenues
increased by 26.2% which is higher than the average of major states. However,
as a proportion of total revenue, it was only 25.5% in 2022-23.
oTaxes on sales and trade showed a remarkable recovery, with a growth
of 43.7% after experiencing a decline in earlier years. The State GST also
contributed positively, benefiting from enhanced collection strategies
and cross-utilization of input tax credits.
Bihar Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 37
• Non-Tax Revenues rose by 3.7%, marking a modest recovery compared to
the previous year, while share of State’s Non-Tax Revenue in the GSDP was
only 0.5%.
oThere were substantial decreases in interest receipts and dividends, down
by 11.1% and 77.2%, respectively.
oThe primary growth driver was non-ferrous mining, which constituted the
largest share of the State’s Non-Tax Revenue.
Fiscal Prudence
• The Fiscal Deficit of the State saw a significant increase, rising from 2.6% of
GSDP in 2018-19 to 5.9% in 2022-23, surpassing the stipulated limit of 4% set
by the BFRBM Act. The Fiscal Deficit was mainly financed through market
borrowings and loans from GoI.
• The State has faced a Revenue Deficit since 2019-20, failing to achieve the
target of a Revenue Surplus. The main reasons for Revenue Deficit were
less receipt of Grants-in-aid and shorter collection of Non-Tax Revenue than
projected.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The Debt-to-GSDP ratio increased from 32% in 2018-19 to 39.3% in 2022-23,
indicating a concerning upward trend over the past five years. The ratio of
interest payments to Revenue Receipts has fluctuated between 7% to 9%
during the same period
9
.
• State’s debt sustainability may improve if the growth rate consistently exceeds
the interest rate, yet persistent negative Primary Deficits pose a challenge.


Subsidy have been on an increasing trend since 2018-19.
Notably, power subsidy constitutes the major portion of
the total subsidies and ranged between 68.92% and
82.77% adding significantly to the financial burden.








?X?9
?X?9
?.0%
?.2%
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
.]Z? ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?%
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
-?X?9
-?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
-?%
r?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
?X?9?X?9?X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
?0%
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
?.6%
?.8%
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^µ]Çš}ZÀvµÆ‰v]šµŒ
vŒPÇ^µ]]lZd}šo^µ]]lZ
9
Rising power subsidy has added to the debt burden adversely affecting development expenditure: Asian Development Research
Institute. (2018). EVALUATION OF STATE FINANCES IN BIHAR.
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 38


Subsidy have been on an increasing trend since 2018-19.
Notably, power subsidy constitutes the major portion of
the total subsidies and ranged between 68.92% and
82.77% adding significantly to the financial burden.








?.?%
6.?%
?.0%
?.2%
2.?%
1%
?%
?%
7%
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
.]Z? ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?.6%
?.9%
0.8%
0.6%
6.6%
1.6%
0%
2%
?%
6%
8%
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
2.6%
6.0%
-1.7%
-1.?%
1.?%
2.8%
0.2%
-?%
-2%
1%
?%
?%
7%
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
?2.0%
?9.?%
7.8%
7.6%8.8%
29.8%
1?.?%
0%
10%
20%
?0%
?0%
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
?.6%
?.8%
6.6%
6.7%
?.9%
8.1%
?%
?%
7%
9%
^µ]Çš}ZÀvµÆ‰v]šµŒ
vŒPÇ^µ]]lZd}šo^µ]]lZ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 39
Chhattisgarh has experienced fluctuations in Capital Expenditure but has shown good
revenue growth. To further enhance fiscal health, the state may improve tax collection,
expand Non-Tax Revenue sources, and maintain investment in infrastructure and
essential services.
Quality of Expenditure
• The Capital Expenditure as a percentage of GSDP shows declining trend from
2018-19 (2.7%) to 2021-22 (2.6%), however it increased to 2.9% in 2022-23.
• The increase in expenditure was witnessed under:
oWater supply & sanitation mainly due to increase in expenditure in Jal
Jeevan Mission, Mukhyamantri Samagra Gram Vikas Yojna and Indira
Gaon Ganga Yojna.
oWorks of medical education colleges, expenditure on Cancer institute,
Medical, Dental and Physiotherapy colleges.
• The proportion of expenditure on development, especially on health and
education, to the total expenditure of Chhattisgarh has been on an average
higher (40.4%) than the average of other General States (29.9%) during
2018-19 to 2022-23.
Revenue Mobilization
• The revenue buoyancy with reference to GSDP increased from 0.57 in 2018-
19 to 1.42 in 2022-23. The State’s own revenue buoyancy with reference to
GSDP also increased considerably from 0.69 in 2018-19 to 1.44 in 2022-23.
• The State Own Tax and Non-Tax Revenue increased during 2018-19 to 2022-
23 at a CAGR of 11.5% and 18.6% respectively.
oIncrease in Non-Tax Revenue was from auctioning of coal blocks and
other minerals under non-ferrous mining and metallurgical industries
10
.
Chhattisgarh
10
Economics & Statistics, D. O., Govt. of C. G. (2012). An evaluation of finances of the State of Chhattisgarh FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 40
oThe significant increase in Own Tax revenue was under (i) receipts under
State GST (attributed to resumption of business activities to full strength
and healthy economic recovery) (ii) Taxes on Sales, Trade, etc. (iii) State
Excise.
Fiscal Prudence
• During the period 2018-19 to 2020-21, the State Government was unable to
meet the targets of Revenue Surplus/ deficit-GSDP and outstanding overall
liability- GSDP prescribed in the MTFPS, while it was within the target in 2022-
23.
• The Fiscal Deficit-GSDP ratio remained within the targets in 2018- 2023
except for the year 2019-20 where it exceeded the prescribed limit.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The Debt sustainability remained a challenge during the Covid years (2019-
20 and 2020-21). However, post-Covid, debt sustainability turned positive
due to high growth in GSDP.
• Unlike the two years 2019-20 & 2020-21, public Debt to GSDP has observed
a declining trend for two consecutive years and it reached 18.4 % in 2021-22
and 16.6% in 2022-23. The improvement in rate spread and positive primary
balance resulted in the decline of the public Debt to GSDP ratio in 2021-22.
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23






?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?%
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
Chhattisgarh ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?.?%
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
-?X?9
-?X?9
-?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
?0.?%
??X?9
?.5%
?X?9?X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
??X??9 ??X??9
8?.8?%
??X??9 ??.?0%
??X??9
??9
??9
??9
??9
??9
^ZŒ}(E}v-(ŒŒ}µD]v]vP˜DšooµŒP]o
Industries in Non-tax Receipts
E}vr(ŒŒ}µD]v]vP˜DšooµŒP]o/vµšŒ]
Other Non-tax Receipts
The Non-Tax Revenue increased mainly due to
increase in receipts under Non-ferrous Mining and
Metallurgical Industries which constitutes 80-85% of
non-tax revenue share. Increase in Non-ferrous
Mining and Metallurgical Industries was due to
increase in production of Coal and Iron Ore minerals,
and due to receipt of 150% additional royalty from
Iron Ore and increased production of sand Financial Year 202P
FISCAL HEALTH INDEu 41
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23






?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?%
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
Chhattisgarh ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?.?%
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
-?X?9
-?X?9
-?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
?0.?%
??X?9
?.5%
?X?9?X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
??X??9 ??X??9
8?.8?%
??X??9 ??.?0%
??X??9
??9
??9
??9
??9
??9
^ZŒ}(E}v-(ŒŒ}µD]v]vP˜DšooµŒP]o
Industries in Non-tax Receipts
E}vr(ŒŒ}µD]v]vP˜DšooµŒP]o/vµšŒ]
Other Non-tax Receipts
The Non-Tax Revenue increased mainly due to
increase in receipts under Non-ferrous Mining and
Metallurgical Industries which constitutes 80-85% of
non-tax revenue share. Increase in Non-ferrous
Mining and Metallurgical Industries was due to
increase in production of Coal and Iron Ore minerals,
and due to receipt of 150% additional royalty from
Iron Ore and increased production of sand FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 42
The State Government may create a debt sustainability framework to ensure long
term fiscal health, focusing on a comprehensive debt management strategy to
address rising Committed Expenditures.
Quality of Expenditure
• The relative share of social services as a proportion of total expenditure was
24.3% in 2022-23 and has hovered in the range of 25.0% to 28.4% in last 5
years. It was highest at 28.4% in 2021-22. The relative share of Economic
services as a proportion of total expenditure rose significantly to 32.2% in
2022-23 from 27.3% in 2021-22. It has hovered in the range of 27.3% to 32.2%
in the last 5 years.
• Total Committed Expenditure showed an increasing trend during 2018-23. For
2022-23, Committed Expenditure constituted 52% of Revenue Expenditure
(highest during the five-year period 2018-23)
Revenue Mobilisation
• State Government’s expenditure was largely financed from its own resources,
with 68% of revenue coming from its Own Tax and Non-Tax Revenue.
• The Own Tax Revenue of the state experienced a growth rate of 34.8% in
2022-23. This surge was primarily driven by significant increases in collections
from SGST, taxes on sales, stamp duty and registration fees.
• Non-Tax Revenue grew modestly by 2.2% during the same period. The
increase was largely due to higher receipts from power revenue and other
administrative services.
Fiscal Prudence
• From 2018 to 2023, Goa’s Fiscal Deficit significantly decreased, dropping
from 2.5% of GSDP in 2018-19 to 1.2% in 2022-23, highlighting improved fiscal
management. The State managed to keep the ratio of Fiscal Deficit to GSDP,
during the period 2018-23, within the limit prescribed under GFRBM Act.
Goa Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 43
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
• The State achieved a Revenue Surplus in three of the five years for period
2018-23, with the highest surplus recorded in 2022-23. The Revenue Surplus
exceeded the budget estimate by 553 % which in turn contributed to
restricting the Fiscal Deficit.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• During 2018-23, outstanding debt of the State Government increased from
28.4% to 34 % of GSDP, breaching the target of 25 % of GSDP set by the
GFRBM (First Amendment) Act, 2014.
•
The proportion of interest payments to Revenue Receipts increased from 11.8% in
2018-19 to 15.2% in 2020-21. However, this trend reversed in the subsequent two
years, with the share declining to 12.5% in 2021-22 and further to 10.5% in 2022-23.

• For a sustainable fiscal policy, debt-GSDP ratio should be stable or declining
over a period. Public debt-GSDP ratio of the State increased from 2018-19 to
2020-21 and has been around ~35% in last 3 years.



Significant increase in revenue surplus as compared to
previous year due to absolute increase in own tax revenue
collection specially under SGST and Taxes on sales.








?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
ð9
ð9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
Goa ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?.?9
?.?9?.?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?.?9
?X?9
r?X?9
r?X?9
r?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
îôXð9
??.?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
????
????
????
???????
????
???
ðíî
ðïî
òðñ
???
???
???
????
????
????
????
????
KÁvdÆZÀvµ~/EZŒ}Œ
SGSTTaxes on sales
State excisedÆ}vÀZ]o
^šu‰µšÇvŒP]šŒš]}v( FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 44
To maintain its fiscal health, Gujarat may prioritize increasing Non-Tax Revenue
sources to enhance financial resilience and invest in developmental projects that
drive sustainable growth.
Quality of Expenditure
• In 2022-23, Developmental Expenditure constituted 71% of Total Expenditure,
greater than most of the major states in the study.
• Overall Capex increased by 26.5% during 2018-2023 cumulatively, particularly
in education, sports, arts & culture, petrochemical industries, water supply,
sanitation, medical & public health, irrigation, and roads & bridges as compared
to previous year. The share of Capex in Total Expenditure increased from
14.9% in 2021-22 to 16.4% in 2022-23
• During 2018-2023, Committed Expenditure remained largely stable in the
range of 44%-46% of total Revenue Expenditure, with the government
effectively reducing it as a percentage of Revenue Expenditure over the
years.
• In 2022-23, Revenue Expenditure on social services increased by 10.1% and
economic services by 20.8%. Capital Expenditure on social services increased
by 52.9%, while economic services grew by 13.6%.
Revenue Mobilization
• State-Own Tax Revenues grew at a CAGR of 11.7% from 2018 to 2023, with a
27.8% increase in comparison to the last year, driven by strong contributions
from SGST, sales tax/VAT, stamp duty, and registration fees.
• Own Non-Tax Revenue has remained low, at less than 1% of GSDP over the
past 3 years. However, it experienced a significant 31.5% increase compared
to the previous year, largely driven by growth in non-ferrous and metallurgical
industries, interest receipts, urban development, and other administrative
services.
Gujarat Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 45
Fiscal Prudence
• Fiscal Deficit decreased from 1.8% to 0.7% of GSDP between 2018 and 2023,
demonstrating improved fiscal management and stability. Compared to the
previous year, it decreased approximately by 26% and was majorly financed
through market borrowings.
• The state achieved the target of elimination of Revenue Deficit from 2011-12
to 2019-20. The Revenue Deficit during 2020-21 turned into Revenue Surplus
in 2021-22 and is still growing. During the year 2022-23, Revenue Surplus
represented 0.9% of GSDP.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• In 2018-19 & 2022-23, Gujarat’s debt-to-GSDP ratio was 19.2% and 18.7%, while
interest payments on Revenue Receipts were 14.8% and 12.7% respectively.
• Debt sustainability was positive from 2017-18 to 2019-20 but turned negative
due to the economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However,
by 2021-22, debt sustainability became positive again. The maturity profile of
the outstanding public debt indicates that 90% of the total public debt will
be repayable within the next 10 years.

2.6%
2.0%
1.5%
1.6%
2.3%
1%
2%
3%
Capital Outlay to GSDP
Gujarat Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
5.4%5.7%
1.0%
0.9%0.8%
6.6%
1.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP Average*
Own Non Tax/GSDP Average*
1.8%
0.8%
-0.6%
-0.2%
-0.9%
2.8%
0.2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to
GSDP
FD/GSDPRD/GSDP
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
22.0%
19.2%
18.7%
16.2%
14.8%
12.7%
29.8%
13.5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP Average*
IP/RR Average*
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 46
Haryana may increase Capital Expenditure on social services while enhancing
tax collection efficiency and establishing a clear fiscal management framework
especially with regard to debt sustainability.
Quality of Expenditure
• The growth in Capital Expenditure has not kept pace with the growth in
GSDP since 2018-19. It constituted 1.4% of GSDP during 2022-23 and was less
than the budget estimates. The relative share of Capital Expenditure in the
total expenditure has come down from 16.4% in 2018-19 to 9.7% in 2022-23.
oCapital Expenditure on social services reduced by 31.3% and on economic
services increased by 46.7% in 2022-23 as compared to previous year.
• Around 55% of Total Revenue Expenditure was incurred on Committed
Expenditure during 2022-23 and around 54% in 2018-19.
• The share of social services in Total Expenditure increased from 36% to 39.4%
in 2022-23. Expenditure on economic services decreased from 32% 2018-
19 to 23.2% in 2022-23. The combined expenditure on social and economic
services decreased from 67.9% in 2018-19 to 62.6% in 2022-23.
• The ratio of expenditure on Education and Health was lower in Haryana than
other major states during 2018-19 but higher in 2022-23.
Revenue Mobilisation
• The share of the State’s Own Revenue in Revenue Receipts increased from
76.7% in 2018-19 to 80.3% in 2022-23. Own Tax Revenue increased at CAGR
of 8% over last 5-year period. Additionally, SOTR accounted for 86% of
overall tax revenues in 2022-23 with Sales Tax, State Goods and Services Tax
(SGST), State Excise, and Stamps and Registration contributing significantly.
• Non-Tax Revenues constituted around 10% of total Revenue Receipts
during 2022-23 registering a moderate increase from the previous year. In
comparison with 2021-22, Non-Tax Revenues increased by 18.2%.
Haryana Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 47
• The Revenue buoyancy ratios have also improved considerably over the last
5-year period.
Fiscal Prudence
• During the year 2022-23, Revenue Deficit constituted 1.7% of GSDP and did
not meet the recommendations as per the 15th Finance Commission. The
Revenue Deficit decreased compared to the previous few years, it however,
increased when compared to 2018-19.
• Fiscal Deficit constituted 3.1% of GSDP in 2022-23 which is below the limit
of 3.5% of GSDP prescribed by the Central Finance Commission. The Fiscal
Deficits during 2017-18 to 2021-22 were largely financed through public debt,
which includes market borrowings and loans from Government of India.
Debt Sustainability
• The Debt GSDP ratio increased from 26% in 2018-19 to 33% in 2020-21 and
decreased to 31.7% in 2021-22. For the year 2022-23, the Debt to GSDP ratio
has been maintained at 31%.
•
Interest payments increased by 9.4% in 2022-23 as compared to previous year.
The ratio of Interest Payment to Revenue Receipts stood at 23% in 2022-23.
• The Outstanding Liability and GSDP ratio could not be contained within the
targets fixed during 2018-19 to 2022-23. The state fiscal sustainability has
risks in the short to medium term unless remedial measures are taken to
rationalise expenditure, explore further sources, expand the revenue base
and invest in revenue generating assets.













?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
I??v ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
òXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
òXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9îòXð9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??9
??9
??9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 48
The state may stabilize revenue growth by reducing reliance on union taxes and
enhancing its Own Tax base. It may need to ensure sustainable public debt for the
upcoming years.
Quality of Expenditure
• The state’s development expenditure to total expenditure is higher than most
GCS in 2022-23 and has remained above average in the list of major states
in the last 5 years.
• The share of expenditure on social services has consistently increased from
2018-19 to 2022-23 but the share of economic services has declined over the
same period. The share of general services also decreased during 2022-23.
• Under Revenue Expenditure, Committed Expenditure constitutes the largest
share, particularly interest payments, salaries and pensions which stood at
45% in 2018-19 and 43% in 2022-23 and may limit spending flexibility.
Revenue Mobilization
• The state’s share in union taxes and duties is the largest source of revenue
followed by Own Tax Revenue.
• The growth rate of Own Tax Revenue depicted wide fluctuation between
0.65% to 26.1% during the period 2018-19 to 2022-23 and the Own Tax and
Non-Tax receipts of the state increased by 17.9% and 27.9% respectively.
• The increase in the Own Tax Revenue in the current year was on account of
increase in collection of SGST whereas Non-Tax Revenue increased due to a
rise in collection from mining and metallurgical industries.
Fiscal Prudence
• In 2022-23, the State had Revenue Surplus at 3.3%; Fiscal Deficit was 1.1%
indicating reduced dependence of the state on borrowed funds.
Jharkhand Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 49
• The state also experienced a Revenue Surplus for the period 2018-19 to 2022-
23 except in 2020-21. The Revenue Receipts were a major source of funds in
2021-22 and 2022-23.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
•
The average interest rate has been on a declining trend. Interest payments on
public debt have increased over the years. However, Interest payments as a ratio
of Revenue Receipts have remained within the range of 8%-10% during 2018-23.
• Debt sustainability shows a mixed performance from 2018-19 to the 2022-
23. The ratio of Public Debt/GSDP increased during the period from 2018-19
to 2020-21, but showed a decreasing trend since 2021-22. The percentage
of debt repayment to debt receipts has also increased (significantly during
2022-23). A higher ratio may indicate challenges in meeting debt obligations
with low reliance on additional borrowing.




Revenue from mining has been on an increasing trend
since 2018-19 and contributes significantly to the overall
non-tax revenue.

ðXð9
?X?9
ïXð9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
WZ?lZv‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?.89
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
-?X?9 -?X?9
-?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
rð9
r?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
îóXð9
??X?9
îôXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
ðì9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??9
ðì9
??9
??9
^ZŒ}(E}v-(ŒŒ}µD]v]vP˜DšooµŒP]o
/vµšŒ]]vE}v-tax Recei?ts
E}vr(ŒŒ}µD]v]vP˜DšooµŒP]o/vµšŒ]
KšZŒE}vršÆZ]‰š
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 50
The state may focus on reallocating expenditure toward education and health. It
may need to focus on increasing the revenues of the state.
Quality of Expenditure
• Spending on economic services rose from 36.5% in 2018-19 to 36.8% in 2022-
23, while spending on social services dropped from 39.4% to 34.5%. General
services spending increased from 21.4% to 26.6% for the same period.
• Increase in Capital Expenditure has been mainly towards roads and bridges
and power projects whereas investment in education and health has declined.
oKarnataka’s spending on education (11.6%) and health (4.5%) as a ratio of
total expenditure was lower than other major states’ average.
• High Committed Expenditure (79% of total Revenue Expenditure) limits fiscal
flexibility. Within the Non-Committed Expenditure, there is an increasing
trend of subsidies which grew from 9.4% of the total Revenue Expenditure in
2018-19 to 10.6% in 2022-23.
Revenue Mobilization
• The state’s Own Tax Revenue primarily through GST remains the largest
source of total Revenue Receipts (~63% of Revenue Receipts) which indicates
that its fiscal position is largely influenced by its own resources.
• From 2018-19 to 2022-23, Revenue Receipts grew from ₹1,64,979 crore to
₹2,29,080 crore, with an average annual growth rate of 7%. The revenue
buoyancy of the State with respect to GSDP was positive in all the years
except 2020-21.
Fiscal Prudence
• In 2022-23, Revenue Surplus was 0.6% indicating the State has achieved the
target; Fiscal Deficit was 2.1% as against the limit of 3.5% stated under the
FRBM Act.
Karnataka Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 51
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
• The Fiscal Deficit to GSDP also declined from 4.1% to 2.1% as compared to
previous year on account of Revenue Surplus.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Public debt grew at 19.1% annually from 2018-19 to 2022-23, but the Debt-
to-GSDP ratio has been declining since 2020-21, suggesting future debt
sustainability.
• Large portion of debt receipts is used for repayments, with 40.5% of debt
maturing in 1-6 years.
• Average interest rate on public debt has declined from 7.4% in 2018-19 to
6.5% in 2022-23.
• Positive debt sustainability was observed in all years except in 2020-21 on
account of Covid-19 reflecting that the debt profile of the state could move
towards a stable value depending on the stock of debt and budget surplus
in the forthcoming years.












?X?9
îXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
Y?v?l‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
ð9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?X?9
íîXð9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 52
The state may focus on enhancing revenue mobilization through effective tax and
Non-Tax strategies, optimizing resource efficiency, increasing Capital Expenditure in
the Social Services Sector are increased, and rationalizing expenditures to improve
its fiscal health.
Quality of Expenditure
• Yearly growth in Capital Expenditure during 2022-23 decreased by 1.4% as
compared to previous year. Committed Expenditure constituted 56-68% of
Revenue Expenditure during the period 2018-19 (61.9%) to 2022- 23 (63.9%).
• Development Expenditure has long been overshadowed by the state’s high
Committed Expenditure. In 2022-23, Capital Expenditure was 8.8% of Total
Expenditure, lower than the 15.2% average of comparable states.
• In terms of social sector spending, Kerala’s allocation for health and family
welfare in 2022-23 was 6.4% of Total Expenditure, higher than the average
of 5.6% of other major states and 14% for education close to the average of
14.9% of other major states.
Revenue Mobilisation
• During 2022-23, Own-Revenues of the State recorded a growth rate of 26.5%
as compared to the previous year and a CAGR of 7.3% in last 5 years. Own
Tax Revenues increased by 23.3% and constituted 54.2% of the Revenue
Receipts. Major contributions came from the State Goods and Services Tax,
Taxes on Sales and Trade.
• Kerala is prioritising resource mobilisation for economic recovery and
development with reforms focused on tax revision and modernization of the
GST department
11
.
• In 2022-23, the total State’s Own Non-Tax Revenue (SONTR) reflected a
substantial growth rate of 44.5% over the previous year and CAGR of 5% in
last 5 years. Receipts from State Lotteries are the primary source of Non-Tax
Revenue for the state.
Kerala
11
RBI State Finance: A Study of State Budgets 2025 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 53
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
Fiscal Prudence
• As a percentage of GSDP, the Revenue Deficit decreased from 3.3% in 2021-
22 to 0.9% in 2022-23. The fiscal responsibility targets mandated by the
Kerala Fiscal Responsibility (Amendment) Act, 2022, aim for the elimination
of Revenue Deficits by 2025-26, with specific annual Revenue Surplus goals.
• The Fiscal Deficit in Kerala also showed a downward trend, largely attributed
to a decrease in Revenue Deficit. The Fiscal Deficit as a proportion of GSDP
decreased from 5% in 2021-22 to 2.5% in 2022-23.
Debt Sustainability
• The percent of Total Liabilities to GSDP has increased from 30.7% in 2018-
19 to 37.6% in 2022-23. Kerala’s substantial expenditure on social programs,
difficulties in enhancing revenue mobilization and improving tax collections
have exacerbated fiscal pressures.
• Interest payments consumed 20% of Revenue Receipts during 2021-22 and is
a matter of concern for the State Government. In 2022-23, it consumed 19%
of Revenue Receipts.
• Government should adopt a fiscal consolidation path so that the targets
fixed in the Kerala Fiscal Responsibility Act may be achieved especially with
regard to the Debt-GSDP ratio.













?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
íXð9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
Y?o ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
òXð9 ?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9ïXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9??X?9
??X?9
??X?9??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
îð9
??9
ðì9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 54
The state may prioritize increasing tax revenue by diversifying its sources. It has
maintained the debt ratio at sustainable levels and needs to ensure the momentum
is carried forward.
Quality of Expenditure
The allocation towards social sector expenditure has been the highest under
Revenue Expenditure whereas the allocation towards economic services has been
the highest under Capex from 2018-19 to 2022-23. Capex as a percentage of Total
Expenditure ranged between 17% to 18% in last 5 years.
• In 2022-23, the state allocated 41% of its Revenue Expenditure as a ratio
of Total Expenditure towards the social sector and 27% towards economic
sector.
• Economic sector expenditure as a proportion of total Capex was allocated
61% in the current year. This proportion has declined from 75% in 2018-19 to
61% in 2022-23.
• The relative share of general services in Total Expenditure was stable in the
last 5 years with 22.7% in 2022-23, increased for social services from around
37% (2018-19) to 39% (2022-23) and declined for economic services from
35% (2018-19) to 34% (2022-23).
Revenue Mobilization
• Over last 5 years, Tax Revenue as a percentage of GSDP has declined from
13% in 2018-19 to 11% in 2022-23 whereas Non-Tax Revenue as a percent of
GSDP has remained at 1%. Tax & Non-Tax Revenue increased by ~8% & 30%
respectively in 2022-23 over previous year.
• Total Revenue Receipts as a percentage of GSDP has come down from 18%
in 2018-19 to 15% in 2022-23.
Madhya Pradesh Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 55
Fiscal Prudence
The state experienced a Revenue Surplus of 0.3% and a Fiscal Deficit of 3.3% in
2022-23 which are within the prescribed FRBM limits. The surplus may be attributed
to higher-than-expected Non-Tax Revenue.
• Barring 2020-21 due to Covid-19, the state’s Fiscal Deficit has ranged between
2.9% and 3.5% from 2018-19 to 2022-23.
• Between 2018-19 and 2022-23, the state experienced a Revenue Surplus in
three years.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
Debt to GSDP has remained in the range ~24-31% during 2018-19 to 2022-23,
although there is a 14% increase in public debt in the current year over 2021-22.
• Barring 2020-21, the majority of borrowed funds (75-90%) have been utilized
for Capex, reflecting a strong focus on the creation of capital assets from
2018-23. Also, considerable portion of borrowings were used for repayment
of earlier borrowings.
• In 2022, the average interest rate on outstanding borrowings was 7.0%,
which has increased to 7.5% as of March 2023, increasing the expenditure on
interest payment
12
. The ratio of interest payments to Revenue Receipts was
favourable ranging between 7.7% and 9.6% during 2018-23.












ðXï9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
DZÇWŒZ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9?X?9
íXð9 ?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?X?9
r?X?9
r?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
ð9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
îïXð9
??X?9
?X?9?X?9
?X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
12
Madhya Pradesh Economic Survey - 2023-24
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 56
The state may reallocate expenditures to productive sectors and ensure sustainable
debt management.
Quality of Expenditure
The shares of social and economic services in total expenditure have remained stable
from 2018-19 to 2022-23. Developmental Revenue Expenditure constitutes 63.6%
of total Revenue Expenditure, while developmental Capital Expenditure makes up
59.5% of total Capital Expenditure
13
.
• The state’s Total Expenditure as a proportion of GSDP in 2022-23 stood at
around 13.4%, which is below the major states’ average of 15.79%.
• The state’s social and economic sector spending as a proportion of Total
Expenditure is below the major states, indicating underinvestment in both
sectors
oExpenditure on education as a proportion of Total Expenditure increased
from 16.9% in 2018-19 to 17.2% in 2022-23. In the case of average of major
states, it increased from 14.8% to 14.9% during the same period.
oDespite a marginal increase from 2018-19, the state’s health expenditure
as a proportion of total expenditure remains at 4.3%, lower than the major
states’ average of 5.7% in 2022-23.
Revenue Mobilization
• The Revenue Receipts grew at 21.7% and the percentage of Revenue Receipts
over GSDP improved from 10.7% in 2021-22 to 11.5% in 2022-23.
• Own Tax Revenue of the State increased by 25.60% (annually) due to SGST
collection while the Non-Tax Revenue decreased by 13.1% from 2021-22 due
to decreased revenue collection under the fees received from land under
urban development.
Maharashtra
13
Calculated from Maharashtra Economic Survey, 2023-24 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 57
Fiscal Prudence
• The Revenue Deficit as a percentage of GSDP stood at 0.1% as against the
target of Revenue Surplus whereas the Fiscal Deficit as a percentage of
GSDP stood at 1.92% against the limit of 3.5% prescribed under the FRBM
Act. The Fiscal Deficit increased over the previous year due to increase in
Capital Expenditure.
• The state’s Committed Expenditure as a percentage of the Revenue Receipts
decreased from 59.4% in 2021-22 to 54.64% in 2022-23 but has generally
remained between 50-60%, limiting the availability of revenue resources
for other purposes, including debt servicing. The Committed Expenditure
increased by 11.9% from the previous year.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Debt has grown at an average rate of 9.92% annually between 2018-19 to 2022-23.
Majority of the borrowing was used to repay older borrowing in the current period.
• While the Debt to GSDP ratio went down marginally to 18.1% in the current
year from 19.3% in 2021-22, it stood at 17.27% in 2018-19. The ratio of interest
payment to Revenue Receipts has also declined from 12.2% in 2018-19 to 10.3%
to 2022-23.
• Ratio of public debt repayments to public debt receipts ranged between 96.5%
and 43.0% during the period 2018-19 to 2022-23 which means that most of the
public borrowings were used for repayment of earlier borrowings leaving less
space to use productively.












?X?9 ?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
DZŒZšŒ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
óXð9 ?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9?X?9
?X?9
r?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9??X?9??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 58
Odisha is among the few Indian states, complying with the FRBM parameters since
2005, taking prudent measures to keep its fiscal indicators healthy.
Quality of Expenditure
The state government is aware that its developmental needs require sustained
increases in spending on priority sectors like healthcare and education. This has
been clearly indicated through the following:
• The Revenue Expenditure and Capital Expenditure increased by 53.5% and
42.0% respectively, during 2018-19 to 2022-23.
• The Capex grew at an average annual rate of 9.2% during the same period.
oIn comparison to the previous year, Capex on education, sports, arts and
culture rose due to increase in expenditure under Samagra Shiksha. The
increase in urban development was due to increase in expenditure for
New City Development.
• It was observed that on an average, the Revenue Expenditure on health and
education by Odisha (CAGR 33.8%) was higher than that of the major states
(CAGR 22.6%) during 2020-2022.
Revenue Mobilization
• The ratio of State’s Own Non-Tax Revenue to GSDP witnessed an increase
from 2.9% in 2018-19 to 5.6% in 2022-23
.
• About 90% of the State’s Own Non-Tax Revenue and 45% of the State’s Own
Revenue Receipts stem from the mining sector with premiums linked to
market prices over the lease period, rather than increased extraction
14,15
.
• As opposed to 2021-22, there was a decrease in the revenue from mining
sector in 2022-23, due to a rise in the prices of iron-ore.
Odisha
14
Finance Department, Government of Odisha. (2022). ODISHA BUDGET – AN INSIGHT 2022-23.
15
RBI State Finance: A Study of State Budgets 2025. Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 59
• In 2022-23, the Own Tax Revenue increased by 14.3% over previous year.
The major increase was under (i) receipts under State GST (attributed to
resumption of business activities to full strength and healthy economic
recovery) (ii) Taxes on Sales, Trade, etc. (iii) State Excise.
Fiscal Prudence
• Prudence in expenditure and efforts to mobilise own revenue have reduced
the Fiscal Deficit from 6.9% of GSDP in 2000-01 to a 2% in 2022-23 which is
within the limit of 3% set by FRBM.
• The State has been able to attain a Revenue Surplus since 2005-06. This
creation of fiscal space enabled the state government to invest more in
socio-economic sectors and critical areas of the economy.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Since 2019-20 the total debt of the State has been decreasing mainly due to
the repayment of market loans. The Outstanding Liabilities/GSDP between
2018-19 to 2022-23 ranged between ~15%-24%, within the target of 25% set
by FRBM.
• In the last five financial years (i.e., 2018-19 to 2022-23), the State had a
Primary Deficit, except for the year 2021-22. However, debt sustainability has
been positive in last few years, except in 2020-21.


Revenue from mining have been on an increasing
trend since 2018-19 and contributes an average of
90% to the overall non-tax revenue.








?X?9
?.8%
?X?9
?.?%
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?%
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
K]Z‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššh?vZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
-?X?9
-?X?9
-?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
-?%
r?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
1?.?%
?.9%
?X?9
?X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
??.?% ??X?9
??X?9
??X??9
29.??%
??X??9
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
^ZŒ}(D]v]vP]vE}v-tax revenue
Revenue from mining /Non tax revenue
Other Non tax receipts/Non tax revenue
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 60


Revenue from mining have been on an increasing
trend since 2018-19 and contributes an average of
90% to the overall non-tax revenue.








?.?%
?.8%
?.?%
?.?%
2.?%
1%
2%
?%
?%
?%
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
K]Z‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?.?%
?.1%
2.?%2.9%
?.?%
?.?%
1.?%
1%
?%
?%
?%
^ššh?vZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
2.0%
2.0%
-2.8%
-?.2%
-2.?%
2.8%
0.2%
-?%
-?%
-1%
?%
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
1?.1%
21.?%
1?.?%
?.9%
?.8%
?.?%
29.8%
1?.?%
0%
10%
20%
?0%
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
??.?% ?0.?%
88.1%
2?.?0%
29.??%
11.89%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
^ZŒ}(D]v]vP]vE}v-tax revenue
Revenue from mining /Non tax revenue
Other Non tax receipts/Non tax revenue
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 61
The state may prioritize enhancing revenue mobilization, improving capital project
execution, and addressing rising debt levels to ensure fiscal stability and support
essential public services.
Quality of Expenditure
• The ratio of spending on social services as a proportion of Total Expenditure
has decreased compared to national averages, falling from 12.9% in 2018-19
to 12% in 2022-23 for education, and for health from 4.1% in 2018-19 to 3.9%
in 2022-23.
• Capital Expenditure as a percentage of Total Expenditure rose from 3% in
2018-19 to 5.5% in 2022-23, yet remains below the major states’ average.
Capital Expenditure was 7% of the total borrowings.
• Backlog of incomplete projects has negatively impacted capital utilization
without yielding immediate returns, while high borrowing costs from state
loans add pressure impacting the fiscal framework. The return on government
investments in PSUs has been low (~ 0.02%), lower than the average interest
rate on government borrowings.
Revenue Mobilization
• Own Tax Revenues grew by 13.1% in 2022-23 as compared to previous year,
driven by strong performance in sales tax/VAT and notable increases in
excise duties.
• In 2022-23, Non-Tax Revenue surged by 30.2%, primarily driven by
increases in various sectors. Notable growth areas included Miscellaneous
General Services, which rose significantly, along with Education, Sports,
Art and Culture, and Non-ferrous Mining. However, road transport receipts
experienced a decline due to an aging fleet and free travel policies.
Punjab FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 62
Fiscal Prudence
• The Revenue Deficit-to-GSDP ratio rose from 2.5% in 2018-19 to 3.8% in
2022-23. The government failed to meet its Revenue Deficit targets in each
year from 2018-2023. Additionally Committed Expenditure as a percentage
of Revenue Receipts has been around 80% from 2018-19 to 2022-23.
• The Fiscal Deficit-to-GSDP ratio increased significantly from 3.1% in 2018-19
to 5% in 2022-23 and was mainly financed through market borrowings. The
government was unable to maintain this ratio within target levels during the
period from 2020-21 to 2022-23.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The Debt-to-GSDP ratio has been consistently increasing from ~41% in 2018-19
to ~46% in 2022-23, indicating rising debt levels. The growth rate of outstanding
public debt has increased from 4.5% in 2021-22 to 13.8% in 2022-23. Punjab has
established Debt Management Unit to diversify debt issuance and reduce
debt to GDSP ratio by three percentage points by 2025-26.
• Debt sustainability is negative, suggesting that without intervention, debt
levels may continue to rise.


An upward trend on committed expenditure leaves the
State with less flexibility for the development sector. The
share of committed expenditure within total revenue
expenditure accounts for approximately 60-65% since
2018-19, which limits the available resources for
development-related revenue expenditure.

?X?9
?X?9?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?%
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?%
?9
?9
??9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
?1.?%
?6.1%
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
?5%
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
??X?9??X?9
??X?9
??X?9 ??X?9
??X?9
??9
?0%
??9
??9
??9
^ZŒ}(}uu]šš˜E}v-/}uu]??
Ɖv]šµŒ]vZÀvµÆ‰v]šµŒ~Z
/}uu]?? 9??v]???lw9
b}vr/}uu]?? 9??v]???lw9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9 ‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
t?vi ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 63


An upward trend on committed expenditure leaves the
State with less flexibility for the development sector. The
share of committed expenditure within total revenue
expenditure accounts for approximately 60-65% since
2018-19, which limits the available resources for
development-related revenue expenditure.

?.2%
6.2%6.2%
1.5%
0.9%
6.6%
1.6%
0%
2%
?%
6%
8%
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?.1%
5.0%
2.6%?.8%
2.8%
0.2%
0%
2%
?%
6%
8%
10%
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
?1.?%
?6.1%
2?.0%
26.2%
22.?%
29.8%
1?.5%
5%
15%
25%
?5%
?5%
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
6?.?%66.5%
61.8%
?2.?%
??.5%
?8.2%
?0%
?0%
50%
60%
?0%
^ZŒ}(}uu]šš˜E}v-/}uu]??
Ɖv]šµŒ]vZÀvµÆ‰v]šµŒ~Z
/}uu]?? 9??v]???lw9
b}vr/}uu]?? 9??v]???lw9
0.9%
0.5%
?.?%
1.?%
1.0%
2.?%
0%
1%
2%
?%
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
t?vi ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 64
The state may need to prioritize capital investments in critical infrastructure,
enhance revenue mobilization by strengthening tax compliance, and manage debt
more effectively.
Quality of Expenditure
• The relative share of General Services in Total Expenditure increased in 2022-
23 as compared to 2021-22, however, expenditure under Social and Economic
Services decreased marginally over the previous year. Payment on subsidies
during 2022-23 increased by 12% from the previous year.
• The Revenue Expenditure under ‘Secretariat - Economic Services’, ‘General
Education’, ‘Interest Payments’, ‘Roads and Bridges’, ‘Rural Employment’,
‘Social Security and Welfare’ and ‘Miscellaneous General Services’ increased
significantly in the current year.
• Capital Expenditure decreased by 18.0% over the previous year. This decrease
was mainly under Capital Outlay on Water Supply and Sanitation and Roads
and Bridges.
Revenue Mobilization
• The State’s Own Tax and Non-Tax Revenue grew at a CAGR of 8.7% and 2.0%
during 2018-19 to 2022-23.
• The growth rate of Own-Tax Revenue in the State during 2022-23 over the
previous year was 16.8%.
• Non-Tax Revenue ranged from 10.2% to 13.5% of Total Revenue Receipts of
the State during the last 5-year period. For 2022-23, the Non-Tax Revenue
increased by 9.7% as compared to the previous year mainly due Petroleum
Receipts, Non-ferrous Mining and Metallurgical Industries.
Rajasthan Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 65
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23
Fiscal Prudence
• While the Fiscal Deficit of the State in 2022-23 (3.8% of GSDP) was more
than the target figure in the FRBM Act (3% of GSDP), it was within the overall
fiscal space allowed by the Central Government to the State (4.4 % of GSDP).
• The state government aimed to achieve Zero Revenue Deficit from the
financial year 2011-12 and thereafter maintain it or attain Revenue Surplus.
However, the State Government could maintain the Revenue Surplus only
during the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and thereafter there has been a Revenue
Deficit during last nine consecutive years up to 2022-23.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The net fund available from borrowing for current operations after providing
for interest and principal repayment increased by ₹6306 crore during 2018-
23. However, the net public debt available as a percentage of public debt
receipts declined from 35.3% in 2021-22 to 17% in 2022-23 indicating a
significant share of debt receipts are being utilized towards redemption of
old public debt.













?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
ZišZv‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
òXð9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
îðXì9
ïðXî9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
îð9
??9
ðì9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 66
The state experienced a considerable revenue and Capital Expenditure growth,
and the Fiscal Deficit and debt levels rose above FRBM targets. To improve fiscal
health, the state may diversify revenue sources, optimize expenditures, ensure fiscal
discipline, and enhance economic growth through investment.
Quality of Expenditure
• The Revenue Expenditure witnessed an increasing trend during 2018-19 to
2022-23 and grew at a CAGR of 7.3%. The major increase was witnessed
under economic services.
• The state ramped up its Capital Expenditure during 2018-19 to 2022-23 which
grew at a CAGR of 10%. Major contributions were under the social sector since
2018-19. At the same time, the economic services also saw an annual surge of
8% in last 5 years.
• In 2022-23, committed expenditure as percentage of the Revenue Expenditure
was 52%. The upward trend on Committed Expenditure since 2018-19, which
grew at an annual rate of 9.9%, may have left the Government with lesser
flexibility for developmental spending.
• Subsidies form a high proportion of Non-Committed Expenditure .
Revenue Mobilization:
• During the period 2018-19 to 2022-23, the State’s Own Tax Revenue grew at a
CAGR of 7.3%. The ratio of State Own Tax Revenue as a percentage of GSDP
was stable at ~6% in last 5 years.
• The Non-Tax Revenue in 2022-23 increased by 40.8% in over the previous
year.
Tamil Nadu Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 67
Fiscal Prudence
• Fiscal Deficit compared to GSDP witnessed an increasing trend during 2018-
19 to 2022-23 and grew from 2.9% in 2018-19 to 3.4% in 2022-23.
• Revenue Deficit has witnessed an increasing trend from 2013-14 onwards. The
Medium-Term Fiscal Policy and the Strategy Statement aimed to eliminate
Revenue Deficit by 2021-22, but the Revenue Deficit decreased only by
around 22.2% in 2022-23 over the previous year. It has come down from 3.5%
of GSDP in 2020-21 to 1.5% in 2022-23.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Tamil Nadu Fiscal Responsibility Act, 2003 prescribed to maintain the ratio
of total outstanding Debt to GSDP with medium term goal of not being more
than 24.5% during 2011-12; 24.8% during 2012-13; 25% during 2013-14; 25.2%
during 2014-15 and thereafter maintain such per cent as may be prescribed.
Since 2020-21, the State has exceeded these limits and witnessed an average
ratio of Outstanding Liabilities to GSDP at ~29% over the past 3 years.












7.3%
6.5%6.3%
0.9%0.7%
6.6%
1.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
State Own Revenue to GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP
Own Non Tax/GSDP
Own Tax/GSDP Average*
Own Non Tax/GSDP Average*
2.9%
5.3%
3.4%
1.4%
1.5%
2.8%
0.2%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Fiscal Deficit & Revenue Deficit to
GSDP
FD/GSDPRD/GSDP
FD/GSDP Average*RD/GSDP Average*
17.9%
22.6%
28.9%
16.6%
19.2%
29.8%
13.5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Debt Stock to GSDP & IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP
IP/RR
Debt Stock/ GSDP Average*
IP/RR Average*
1.3%1.8%
1.7%
1%
2%
3%Capital Outlay to GSDP
Tamil Nadu Capital outlay/GSDP Average*
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 68
The state’s strong revenue growth is encouraging. It may however, focus more on
increasing Capital Expenditure, mainly in the Social (Health & Education) sector
services.
Quality of Expenditure
The state’s Developmental Expenditure has increased due to higher economic
services spending. However, Capex and spending on health and education have
declined:
• The states’ Developmental Expenditure as a ratio of Total Expenditure was
around ~0.70 and has been higher than the average of other major states.
This is mainly due to higher expenditure on economic services but there is a
decline in the allocation towards social services.
• Capex decreased in absolute terms as well as in terms of percentage of GSDP.
Capex as a share of Total Expenditure declined from 17.6% in 2018-19 to 9.3%
in 2022-23. Though higher than many major states, it represents a significant
decline.
• The state has allocated a lower percentage of its Total Expenditure to health
and education compared to the other major states. Health spending as a
ratio of Total Expenditure has also declined from 4.67% in 2018-19 to 4.57%
in 2022-23.
Revenue Mobilization
During 2022-23, States Own Tax Revenue constituted 67% of Total Receipts. Own
Tax Revenue as a ratio of GSDP stood at around 10% in 2022-23:
• The state’s Own Tax Revenue increased by 65.3% from 2018-19 to 2022-
23. The State’s Own Revenue buoyancy ratio of 1.65 with respect to GSDP
indicated faster growth than the GSDP.
Telangana Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 69
• In FY 23, Non-Tax Revenue rose due to higher receipts from various sectors,
including Miscellaneous General Services, Non-ferrous Mining & Metallurgical
Industries, Forestry & Wildlife, Crop Husbandry, Interest Receipts, and Major
Irrigation. Key contributors to tax revenue were State GST, Taxes on Sales,
Trade, State Excise, and Stamps and Registration.
• Receipts from Own Tax Revenue consistently grew, except in 2020-21, and
remain the most reliable income source, while other components showed
uneven trends.
Fiscal Prudence
• The state’s Fiscal Deficit target was set at 5% of GSDP, but it recorded a
lower deficit of 2.48% in 2022-23. It achieved a Revenue Surplus after three
years of deficits and remained compliant with the FRBM targets for both
fiscal and Revenue Deficits in 2022-23.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The growth rate of outstanding public debt ranged between 11.9%-19.1% over
the last five years.
• The ratio of outstanding Debt to GSDP which was increasing year after year
until 2020-21, has shown a decreasing trend in the last 2 years. This year, the
ratio decreased (27.2%) when compared to the preceding year (28.6%).
• The average interest rate of outstanding public debt has decreased from
8.2% in 2018-19 to 7.6% in 2022-23. The state’s reliance on debt has led to a
considerable portion of resources being allotted to debt & interest payments,
which have increased by 73% from ₹12,586 crore in 2018-19 to ₹21,821 crore in
2022-23, consuming a high share of Revenue Expenditure.












?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
íXð9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
dovPv‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
ñXð9
?X?9
?X?9
r?X?9r?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9íîXð9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 70












?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
íXð9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
dovPv‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
ñXð9
?X?9
?X?9
r?X?9r?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9íîXð9
??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 71
Uttar Pradesh has maintained healthy fiscal state but may improve by expanding
its tax base through better GST and excise compliance, and boosting Non-Tax
Revenues by incentivizing high-revenue sectors like mining and education.
Quality of Expenditure
• The state witnessed significant growth in the social sector for both Capital
and Revenue Expenditure since 2018-19, and grew at a CAGR of 27% and 9%
respectively during this period.
• The Capital Expenditure as a percentage of Total Expenditure ranged between
14.8 % and 19.3 % during the period 2018-23 and it was highest in the year
2022-23. The ratio of Capital Expenditure to Total Expenditure of the State
was higher than the major states average in the year 2018-19 and 2022-23.
oIncrease in social services sector was mainly under medical and public
health, water supply, sanitation and housing. Increase was also seen in
economic services sector mainly under food storage, warehousing and
other rural development programme.
oThe ratio of Capital Expenditure on health & family welfare to the total
expenditure in Uttar Pradesh increased from 4.9 % in the year 2018- 19
to 6.5 % in the year 2022-23. Further, it was higher than the major states
average during 2022-23.
Revenue Mobilization
• The CAGR for Revenue Receipts was ~5.0% during the period 2018-23.
oThe major collection in Own Tax Revenue, although lower than the MTFRP
2022 projections, was under (i) receipts under State GST and (ii) Taxes on
Sales, Trade, etc. (iii) State Excise. State’s performance in mobilisation of
Own Tax Revenue was better than 15th Finance Commission projections.
Uttar Pradesh FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 72
oNon-Tax Receipts of the State was the highest during 2019-20. During
2022-23, the increase in total receipts under Non-Tax Revenue were mainly
in receipts of Non-Ferrous Mining and Metallurgical Industries, Education,
Sports, Art and Culture as compared to previous year (2021- 22).
Fiscal Prudence
• The ratio of Fiscal Deficit to GSDP was within the targets set out in the
UPFRBM (Amendment) Act during the period 2018-19 to 2022-23. The Fiscal
Deficit of the State increased to 2.8 % of GSDP in 2022-23 from 2.2 % of
GSDP in 2018-19.
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• The IPRR ratio dropped from 12.6% in 2020-21 to 10.3% in 2022-23. The net
fund from borrowings for current operations after providing for interest and
repayment of public debt had fluctuating trend during 2018-23 and it was
lowest at 5.22% of total public debt taken during the year 2018-19, highest at
30.7% in 2020-21 and at 8.5% for the year 2022-23.
• Positive debt sustainability, along with a Primary Surplus, reduced the Debt
to GSDP ratio in 2021-22. Although a Primary Deficit occurred in 2022-23,
positive debt sustainability was sufficient to offset it, continuing the declining
trend of the debt-to-GSDP ratio.












?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
ðXí9
?X?9
?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
hššŒWŒZ‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
ðXô9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
r?X?9
r?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
rð9
r?9
?9
?9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
?X?9 ?X?9??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
?9
??9
??9
??9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 73
West Bengal may prioritize increasing Capital Expenditure and improving
revenue mobilization through better tax compliance and Non-Tax sources, while
simultaneously implementing stringent fiscal discipline.
Quality of Expenditure
16
• The state’s spending on physical infrastructure as a proportion of Total
Expenditure has reduced from 5.3% in 2018-19 to 3% in 2022-23 which is
lower than the national average.
• Social service expenditure as a proportion of the State’s Total Expenditure
stood at 28.2% in 2022-23 which is lower than the average of major states.
• Capital Expenditure as a proportion of the Total Expenditure has reduced
from 12.2% in 2018-19 to 8.3% in 2022-23, lower than the national average.
Revenue Mobilization
• The State’s Own Tax Revenue was the major source of income for the
government primarily due to collection under SGST and grew at an annual
rate of 6.6% over past 5 years.
• The State’s Own Non-Tax Revenue has seen a decline over the last five-year
period.
• The state’s reliance on grants-in-aid as a proportion of Revenue Receipts has
increased from 17.6 % in 2018-19 to 19.6% in 2022-23.
Fiscal Prudence
• Revenue Deficit as a percentage of GSDP shows variations from 2019-20 to
2022-2023 with an increase in 2020-21 and a decline in 2021-22 and 2022-
23. Fiscal Deficit as a percentage of GSDP has marginally declined over the
years from 3.9% in 2020-21 to 3.2% in 2022-23 but remains above 3%.
West Bengal
16
Finance Department, Government of West Bengal. (2024). MEDIUM TERM FISCAL POLICY STATEMENT & FISCAL POLICY STRATEGY
STATEMENT FOR 2024-25. FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 74
Debt Index & Debt Sustainability
• Debt as a percentage of GSDP has decreased from 40.7 % in 2010-11 to 35.7%
in 2018-19.
• Interest payment account for 20.47% of Revenue Receipts in the current year,
constraining the ability of the state to allocate funds for development.





íXð9
?X?9
?X?9
íXð9
îXïð9
?9
?9
?9
‰]šoKµšoÇš}'^W
tšvPo‰]šo}µšoÇl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9?X?9?X?9
?X?9?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
?9
?9
^ššKÁvZÀvµš}'^W
KÁvdÆl'^W
KÁvE}vdÆl'^W
KÁvdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
KÁvE}vdÆl'^WÀŒPŽ
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?X?9
?9
?9
ð9
&]o(]]š˜ZÀvµ(]]šš}'^W
&l'^WZl'^W
&l'^WÀŒPŽZl'^WÀŒPŽ
??X?9
??X?9
ðîXò9
??X?9
??X?9??X?9
??X?9
??X?9
??9
??9
??9
ïð9
ðî9
š^š}lš}'^W˜/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^W/WlZZ
š^š}ll'^WÀŒPŽ/WlZZÀŒPŽ
*Average of 18 major states for FY 2022-23 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 75 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 76
SECTION G
APPENDIX Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 77
G. Appendix
State-wise FHI Rank and Score Comparison: 2022-23 vs Average for 2014-15 to
2021-22 & Average for 2014-15 to 2018-19
The average FHI score for 2014-15 to 2021-22 and 2014-15 to 2018-19 has been
calculated by taking the average of the values for minor sub-indices for all the
years and using the same methodology as stated above in the methodology
section.
States
FHI
Score
Rank Aver-
age 2014-15
to
2021-22
States
FHI
Score
Rank Aver-
age
2014-15 to
2018-19
Odisha 53.6 1 Odisha 48.2 1
Goa 41.2 2 Goa46.4 2
Karnataka 41.0 3 Karnataka 45.8 3
Maharashtra 40.0 4 Chhattisgarh 44.1 4
Chhattisgarh 40.0 5 Gujarat 41.9 5
Gujarat 39.6 6 Madhya Pradesh41.0 6
Uttar Pradesh38.3 7 Telangana 40.0 7
Madhya
Pradesh 37.7 8 Maharashtra 39.4 8
Telangana 36.2 9 Uttar Pradesh 37.0 9
Jharkhand 35.4 10 Bihar 36.3 10
Bihar 31.1 11 Jharkhand 35.2 11
Tamil Nadu 28.7 12 Tamil Nadu 33.2 12
Andhra Pradesh27.7 13 Andhra Pradesh31.7 13
Haryana 25.0 14 Haryana 27.9 14
Rajasthan 23.7 15 Kerala 24.1 15
Kerala 20.0 16 Rajasthan 24.8 16
West Bengal 17.8 17 West Bengal 19.4 17
Punjab 10.5 18 Punjab 10.6 18 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 78
State-wise FHI Score for Sub-Indices for Average for 2014-15 to 2021-22
Score for Sub-Indices for Average for 2014-15 to 2021-22
States
Quality of
Expenditure
Revenue
Mobilization
Fiscal
Prudence
Debt
Index
Debt Sus-
tainability
Andhra Pradesh 38.3 26.3 7.4 46.4 20.1
Bihar55.8 3.9 28.6 52.1 15.0
Chhattisgarh 50.8 41.6 25.8 81.7 0.0
Goa39.7 69.8 27.4 49.9 19.3
Gujarat37.6 38.4 34.5 60.5 26.9
Haryana30.7 40.4 7.1 35.3 11.5
Jharkhand 45.4 28.7 28.8 60.5 13.8
Karnataka 50.4 40.6 26.5 73.6 14.1
Kerala10.1 41.2 5.4 31.4 11.9
Madhya Pradesh 53.1 28.8 23.6 66.7 16.2
Maharashtra 29.7 53.4 31.6 63.5 22.1
Odisha59.9 49.9 53.2 85.0 19.9
Punjab0.0 35.1 2.6 0.0 14.8
Rajasthan 41.5 30.9 0.0 35.7 10.4
Tamil Nadu 29.9 40.9 13.2 51.4 8.3
Telangana 45.2 52.0 18.0 61.4 4.5
Uttar Pradesh 41.6 42.2 38.8 53.1 15.9
West Bengal 25.6 11.7 14.0 14.6 23.0 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 79
State-wise FHI Score for Sub-Indices for Average for 2014-15 to 2018-19
Score for Sub-Indices Average for 2014-15 to 2018-19
States
Quality of
Expenditure
Revenue
Mobilization
Fiscal
Prudence
Debt
Index
Debt Sus-
tainability
Andhra Pradesh 47.4 29.7 7.4 51.0 22.7
Bihar68.0 4.4 39.5 54.4 15.2
Chhattisgarh 54.5 42.5 33.7 89.6 0.1
Goa44.0 76.4 34.6 52.8 24.4
Gujarat42.6 44.2 35.6 59.4 27.5
Haryana37.3 43.5 7.9 42.7 8.2
Jharkhand 51.3 25.2 26.4 63.0 10.1
Karnataka 54.5 45.2 31.1 80.2 17.9
Kerala17.5 44.6 8.2 37.3 13.0
Madhya Pradesh 53.5 33.6 30.4 71.0 16.6
Maharashtra 33.9 56.2 35.6 52.4 18.6
Odisha67.5 36.8 47.1 84.6 5.0
Punjab0.0 44.5 1.8 0.0 6.8
Rajasthan 48.3 33.0 1.9 39.3 1.3
Tamil Nadu 32.5 47.7 20.8 59.8 5.1
Telangana 52.0 53.3 24.3 70.3 0.0
Uttar Pradesh 48.3 39.2 33.1 50.0 14.3
West Bengal 31.1 12.4 17.3 11.0 25.2 FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 80
State-wise FHI Rank comparison for all years starting with 2014-15 till 2022-23
and the average ranking for period 2014-15 to 2018-19 and 2014-15 to 2021-22
States
2022-232021-222020-212019-202018-192017-182016-172015-162014-15
Avg 2014-
15 to
2018-19
Avg 2014-
15 to
2021-22
Odisha11122232211
Chhattisgarh222123726945
Goa39779111122
Jharkhand43995101013111110
Gujarat55656475756
Maharashtra64331612121284
Uttar Pradesh7751109118897
Telangana881087859479
Madhya Pradesh9108681264568
Karnataka106444343633
Tamil Nadu111511101214810101212
Rajasthan1213141316131715131615
Bihar13141211115911141011
Haryana1412151414111514151414
Kerala1517161617151316161516
West Bengal1616171715171618181717
Andhra Pradesh17111315131614731313
Punjab1818181818181817171818 Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 81
FHI Score
States Rank FHI Score Category
Odisha167.8 Achiever
Chhattisgarh255.2 Achiever
Goa353.6 Achiever
Jharkhand451.6 Achiever
Gujarat550.5 Achiever
Maharashtra650.3 Front Runner
Uttar Pradesh745.9 Front Runner
Telangana843.6 Front Runner
Madhya Pradesh942.2 Front Runner
Karnataka1040.8 Front Runner
Tamil Nadu1129.2 Performer
Rajasthan1228.6 Performer
Bihar1327.8 Performer
Haryana1427.4 Performer
Kerala1525.4 Aspirational
West Bengal1621.8 Aspirational
Andhra Pradesh1720.9 Aspirational
Punjab1810.7 Aspirational
Categorization of States for 2022-23
States have been classified on the basis of the FHI score as per below categories
FHI scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification
Above 50Achiever
Greater than 40 & less than equal to 50 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 40 Performer
Less than equal to 25Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 82
Quality of Expenditure
States Rank Quality of ExpenditureCategory
Madhya Pradesh 159.7 Achiever
Bihar256.1 Achiever
Chhattisgarh355.1 Achiever
Odisha452.0 Achiever
Karnataka547.4 Front Runner
Jharkhand647.3 Front Runner
Uttar Pradesh 745.8 Front Runner
Goa845.5 Front Runner
Gujarat940.0 Performer
Rajasthan1038.3 Performer
Maharashtra1137.1 Performer
Telangana1236.9 Performer
West Bengal1332.3 Performer
Tamil Nadu1432.0 Performer
Andhra Pradesh 1531.4 Performer
Haryana1624.8 Performer
Punjab174.7 Aspirational
Kerala184.2 Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Quality of Expenditure score as per
below categories
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification
Above 50Achiever
Greater than 40 & less than equal to 50 Front Runner
Greater than 20 & less than equal to 40 Performer
Less than equal to 20Aspirational Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 83
Revenue Mobilization
States Rank Revenue MobilizationCategory
Goa187.1 Achiever
Telangana275.2 Achiever
Odisha369.9 Achiever
Maharashtra459.1 Front Runner
Chhattisgarh556.5 Front Runner
Kerala654.2 Front Runner
Gujarat748.7 Front Runner
Haryana847.8 Front Runner
Jharkhand945.7 Front Runner
Karnataka1043.9 Performer
Tamil Nadu1141.2 Performer
Rajasthan1235.4 Performer
Uttar Pradesh 1334.6 Performer
Punjab1428.1 Performer
Madhya Pradesh 1527.6 Performer
Andhra Pradesh 1622.1 Aspirational
West Bengal1712.4 Aspirational
Bihar185.3 Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Revenue Mobilization score as per
below categories
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification
Above 60Achiever
Greater than 45 & less than equal to 60 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 45 Performer
Less than equal to 25Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 84
Fiscal Prudence
States Rank Fiscal PrudenceCategory
Jharkhand1 62.4 Achiever
Goa2 59.4 Achiever
Chhattisgarh 3 56.0 Achiever
Odisha4 54.0 Achiever
Gujarat5 52.7 Achiever
Uttar Pradesh 6 44.7 Front Runner
Karnataka7 43.9 Front Runner
Maharashtra8 41.8 Front Runner
Telangana9 40.8 Front Runner
Madhya Pradesh 10 35.6 Performer
Kerala11 34.0 Performer
Haryana12 26.1 Performer
Tamil Nadu13 25.8 Performer
West Bengal 14 25.4 Aspirational
Rajasthan15 19.9 Aspirational
Andhra Pradesh 16 13.3 Aspirational
Bihar17 11.5 Aspirational
Punjab18 5.6 Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Fiscal Prudence score as per below
categories
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification
Above 50Achiever
Greater than 40 & less than equal to 50 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 40 Performer
Less than equal to 25Aspirational Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 85
Debt Index
States Rank Debt IndexCategory
Odisha1 99.0 Achiever
Chhattisgarh 2 79.6 Achiever
Maharashtra3 76.4 Achiever
Gujarat4 69.0 Achiever
Jharkhand5 66.9 Achiever
Karnataka6 62.2 Front Runner
Madhya Pradesh 7 61.0 Front Runner
Uttar Pradesh 8 59.9 Front Runner
Telangana9 53.3 Front Runner
Goa10 51.0 Front Runner
Bihar11 47.2 Front Runner
Andhra Pradesh 12 37.8 Performer
Tamil Nadu13 36.0 Performer
Rajasthan14 32.3 Performer
Haryana15 24.1 Aspirational
Kerala16 23.1 Aspirational
West Bengal 17 18.3 Aspirational
Punjab18 0.0 Aspirational
States have been classified on the basis of the Debt Index score as per below
categories
The scores have been rounded off to the nearest number for the below classification
Above 60Achiever
Greater than 45 & less than equal to 65 Front Runner
Greater than 25 & less than equal to 45 Performer
Less than equal to 25Aspirational FISCAL HEALTH INDEX
Financial Year 2023 86
Dr. Pravakar SahooSenior Adviser, NITI Aayog
Shri Amit VermaDirector, NITI Aayog
Smt. Radhika SharmaDeputy Director, MoC
Smt. Jyotika NagvanshiDeputy Director, NITI Aayog
Smt. Pooja TeotiaConsultant-I, NITI Aayog
Smt. Mala ParasharConsultant-I, NITI Aayog
Smt. Salome Sara Philips Young Professional, NITI Aayog
Smt. Riya JindalYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
Smt. Kavya Raghuram RaoYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
Shri Manuj JoshiYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
Smt. Reshma Shyna ShajanYoung Professional, NITI Aayog
CONTRIBUTORS Financial Year 2023
FISCAL HEALTH INDEX 87
Acknowledgement
As part of the development of the Fiscal Health Index (FHI), we
had the privilege of convening a meeting with a distinguished
panel of experts. The expert meeting was crucial in refining the
methodology and ensuring that the FHI reflects a well-rounded and
comprehensive approach to evaluate the fiscal health of the states.
It is with great appreciation that we take this opportunity to extend
our gratitude to all the esteemed experts for their valuable inputs.
Our heartfelt thanks go to all the distinguished experts: Dr. Anoop
Singh (Distinguished Fellow at NITI Aayog), Govind Bhattacharjee
(AJNIFM), Prof. Asit Mohanty (XIMB), Prof. H.K. Amarnath
(NIPFP), Dr. Parma Chakravartti (IEG), Shri Harendra Behera
(RBI), Dr. Atri Mukherjee (RBI), Prof. Amarendra Das (NISER),
Prof. Amresh Samantaray (Puducherry University), Prof. R. Mohan
(Gulati Institute of Finance and Taxation), Dr. Ranjan Kumar Dash
(Symbiosis School of Economics, Pune), Dr. Bhavesh Garg, (IIT
Ropar) and Dr. Ashwani Bishnoi, (GJUST, Hisar).
Dr. Pravakar Sahoo
Senior Lead, Economics and Finance -1
NITI Aayog NOTES NOTES