For this purpose, the GST (Compensation to States) Act was enacted in 2017 on the recommendation of the GST Council. The Act guarantees all states an annual growth rate of 14% in their GST revenue during the period July 2017-June 2022. If a state’s GST revenue grows slower than 14%, such ‘loss of revenue’ will be taken care of by the Centre by providing GST compensation grants to the state. To provide these grants, the Centre levies a GST compensation cess on certain luxury and sin goods such as cigarettes and tobacco products, pan masala, caffeinated beverages, coal, and certain passenger vehicles. The Act requires the Centre to credit this cess revenue into a separate Compensation Fund and all compensation grants to states are required to be paid out of the money available in this Fund.
How much compensation is provided to states?
For 2018-19, Centre gave Rs 81,141 crore to states as GST compensation. However, for the year 2019-20, the compensation requirement of states nearly doubled to Rs 1.65 lakh crore. A huge increase in requirement implies that states’ GST revenue grew at a slower rate during 2019-20. This can be attributed to the economic slowdown seen last year, which resulted in a nominal GDP growth of 7.2%. This was significantly lower than the 12% GDP growth forecast in the 2019-20 union budget (Figure 1).
Figure 1: GDP growth rate (2017-21)
Sources: Union Budget Documents; MOSPI; PRS.
In 2019-20, the gross GST revenue (Centre+states) increased by just 4% over the previous year. Despite this, due to the compensation guarantee, all states could achieve the growth rate of 14% in their GST revenue – much higher than the overall growth in GST revenue. However, there was a delay in payment of compensation from Centre. More than Rs 64,000 crore of the compensation requirement of states for 2019-20 was met in the financial year 2020-21.
What led to a delay in payment of compensation to states?
In 2019-20, the delay in payment was observed due to insufficient funds with Centre for providing compensation to states. These funds are raised by levying a compensation cess on the sale of certain goods, some of which were affected by the economic slowdown. For instance, in 2019-20, sales of passenger vehicles declined by almost 18% and coal offtake from domestic coal companies reduced by nearly 5%, over the previous year. As a result, cess collections registered a growth of just 0.4% in 2019-20 (Figure 2), against the 104% increase seen in the compensation requirement of states. This resulted in a shortfall of funds of nearly Rs 70,000 crore.
Figure 2: Cess collections insufficient for providing compensation
Note: In 2017-18, GST was implemented for only nine months. Compensation amount shown may not match with the amount released in that financial year because of delay in releases.
Sources: Union Budget Documents; Ministry of Finance; GST Council; Lok Sabha Questions; PRS.
How can compensation be paid to states if cess collections are insufficient?
The shortfall in collections for 2019-20 was met through: (i) surplus cess collections from previous years, (ii) partial cess collections of 2020-21, and (iii) a transfer of Rs 33,412 crore of unsettled GST funds from the Centre to the Compensation Fund. These unsettled funds are GST collections, generated in 2017-18 from inter-state and foreign trade, that have not yet been settled between centre and states.
In the 2020-21 budget, the Centre has estimated a 10% growth in nominal GDP. However, due to the impact of COVID-19 and the lockdown, the actual growth in 2020-21 is likely to be much lower. In such a scenario, states’ GST revenue would also be much lower than expected, thus leading to a higher compensation requirement. However, the ability of Centre to pay compensation depends on the cess collections, which are also getting impacted this year. For instance, cess collections during the period Apr-Jun 2020 have been 41% lower in comparison to the same period last year. Moreover, of the Rs 14,482 crore collections made during this period, Rs 8,680 crore has been likely used up for paying compensation for 2019-20.
Note that under the GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017, Centre can provide compensation to states only through the money available in the Compensation Fund. The Union Finance Minister, in her budget speech in February 2020, clarified that transfers to the Fund would be limited only to collections of the GST compensation cess. Despite a shortfall of money in the Compensation Fund, the Centre is constitutionally obligated to meet states’ compensation requirement for a period of five years.
Various measures have been suggested to address the issue of shortfall in the Fund, either by reducing the compensation payable to states (which would require Parliament to amend the Act following GST Council’s recommendation) or by supplementing the funds available with Centre for providing compensation to states. The Act allows the GST Council to recommend other funding mechanisms/ amounts for credit into the Compensation Fund. For example, one of the measures proposed for meeting the shortfall involves Centre using market borrowings to pay compensation to states, with the idea that these borrowings will be repaid with the help of future cess collections. To enable this, the GST Council may recommend to Centre that the compensation cess be levied for a period beyond five years, i.e. post June 2022.
Impact on states post 2022
In 2019-20, except for a few north-eastern states, most states saw their compensation requirements increase multifold by 2-3 times, over the previous year’s figures. Table 1 shows the compensation requirement of states for the years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Six states (Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu) accounted for 52% of the total requirement of compensation for 2019-20. Further, in some states such as Punjab and Delhi, compensation grants form a significant share of the overall revenue receipts (20% and 16% resepctively).
Note that states have been guaranteed compensation only for a period of five years. After June 2022, states dependent on compensation will observe a revenue gap due to a cut in these grants coming from Centre. States have roughly two years to bridge this gap with other tax and non-tax sources to avoid a potential loss of revenue, and a consequent fall in the size of their state budget, which could adversely affect the economy. To what extent will such concerns be alleviated remains to be seen based on the course of action decided by the GST Council.
Table 1: GST compensation requirement of states for 2018-19 and 2019-20 (in Rs crore)
|
State |
2018-19 |
2019-20 |
% increase in compensation requirement |
||
|
Amount |
As a % of revenue |
Amount |
As a % of revenue* |
||
|
Andhra Pradesh |
0 |
- |
3,028 |
3% |
- |
|
Assam |
455 |
1% |
1,284 |
1% |
182% |
|
Bihar |
2,798 |
2% |
5,464 |
4% |
95% |
|
Chhattisgarh |
2,592 |
4% |
4,521 |
7% |
74% |
|
Delhi |
5,185 |
12% |
8,424 |
16% |
62% |
|
Goa |
502 |
5% |
1,093 |
9% |
118% |
|
Gujarat |
7,227 |
5% |
14,801 |
10% |
105% |
|
Haryana |
3,916 |
6% |
6,617 |
10% |
69% |
|
Himachal Pradesh |
1,935 |
6% |
2,477 |
8% |
28% |
|
Jammu and Kashmir |
1,667 |
3% |
3,281 |
5% |
97% |
|
Jharkhand |
1,098 |
2% |
2,219 |
4% |
102% |
|
Karnataka |
12,465 |
8% |
18,628 |
11% |
49% |
|
Kerala |
3,532 |
4% |
8,111 |
9% |
130% |
|
Madhya Pradesh |
3,302 |
3% |
6,538 |
4% |
98% |
|
Maharashtra |
9,363 |
3% |
19,233 |
7% |
105% |
|
Meghalaya |
66 |
1% |
157 |
2% |
138% |
|
Odisha |
3,785 |
4% |
5,122 |
5% |
35% |
|
Punjab |
8,239 |
13% |
12,187 |
20% |
48% |
|
Rajasthan |
2,280 |
2% |
6,710 |
5% |
194% |
|
Tamil Nadu |
4,824 |
3% |
12,305 |
7% |
155% |
|
Telangana |
0 |
- |
3,054 |
3% |
- |
|
Tripura |
172 |
1% |
293 |
3% |
70% |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
0 |
- |
9,123 |
3% |
- |
|
Uttarakhand |
2,442 |
8% |
3,375 |
11% |
38% |
|
West Bengal |
2,615 |
2% |
6,200 |
4% |
137% |
Note: Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Sikkim did not require any compensation in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
*Revenue for the year 2019-20 does not takes into account those GST compensation grants which were payable to states in 2019-20 but were released by Centre in the year 2020-21. The percentage figures would be slightly lower if such grants are included in 2019-20 revenue.
Sources: State Budget Documents; Ministry of Finance; Lok Sabha Questions; CAG; PRS.
The NEP states that the Right to Education Act, 2009 has been successful in achieving near universal enrolment in elementary education, however retaining children remains a challenge for the schooling system. As of 2015-16, Gross Enrolment Ratio was 56.2% at senior secondary level as compared to 99.2% at primary level. GER denotes enrolment as a percent of the population of corresponding age group. Further, it noted that the decline in GER is higher for certain socio-economically disadvantaged groups, based on: (i) gender identities (female, transgender persons), (ii) socio-cultural identities (scheduled castes, scheduled tribes), (iii) geographical identities (students from small villages and small towns), (iv) socio-economic identities (migrant communities and low income households), and (v) disabilities. In the table below, we detail the GER in school education across: (i) gender, and (ii) socio-cultural identities.
Table 1: GER in school education for different gender and social groups (2015-16)
|
Level |
Male |
Female |
SC |
ST |
All |
|
Primary (I-V) |
97.9% |
100.7% |
110.9% |
106.7% |
99.2% |
|
Upper Primary (VI-VIII) |
88.7% |
97.6% |
102.4% |
96.7% |
92.8% |
|
Secondary (IX-X) |
79.2% |
81% |
85.3% |
74.5% |
80% |
|
Senior Secondary (XI-XII) |
56% |
56.4% |
56.8% |
43.1% |
56.2% |
Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.
Data for all groups indicates decline in GER as we move from primary to senior secondary for all groups. This decline is particularly high in case of Scheduled Tribes. Further, we analyse the reason for dropping out from school education. Data suggests that the most prominent reason for dropping out was: engagement in domestic activities (for girls) and engagement in economic activities (for boys).
Table 2: Major reasons for dropping out (Class 1-12) for 2015-16
|
Reason for dropping out |
Male |
Female |
|
Child not interested in studies |
23.8% |
15.6% |
|
Financial Constraints |
23.7% |
15.2% |
|
Engage in Domestic Activities |
4.8% |
29.7% |
|
Engage in Economic Activities |
31.0% |
4.9% |
|
School is far off |
0.5% |
3.4% |
|
Unable to cop-up with studies |
5.4% |
4.6% |
|
Completed desired level/ Class |
5.7% |
6.5% |
|
Marriage |
|
13.9% |
|
Other reasons |
5.1% |
6.2% |
Note: Other reasons include: (i) timings of educational Institution not suitable, (ii) language/medium of Instruction used unfamiliar, (iii) inadequate number of teachers, (iv) quality of teachers not satisfactory, (v) unfriendly atmosphere at school. For girl students, other reasons also include: (i) non-availability of female teachers, (ii) non-availability of girl’s toilet.
Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.
The NEP recommends strengthening of existing schemes and policies which are targeted for such socio-economically disadvantaged groups (for instance, schemes for free bicycles for girls or scholarships) to tackle dropouts. Further, it recommends setting up special education zones in areas with significant proportion of such disadvantaged groups. A gender inclusion fund should also be setup to assist female and transgender students in getting access to education.
Increasing GER in Higher Education to 50% by 2035
The NEP aims to increase the GER in higher education to 50% by 2035. As of 2018-19, the GER in higher education in the country stood at 26.3%. Figure 2 shows the trend of GER in higher education over the last few years. Note that the annual growth rate of GER in higher education in the last few years has been around 2%.
Figure 1: GER in Higher Education (2014-15 to 2018-19)
Sources: All India Survey on Higher Education, MHRD; PRS.
Table 3: Comparison of GER (higher education) with other countries
|
Country |
GER (2017-18) |
|
India |
25% |
|
Brazil |
51% |
|
China |
49% |
|
Indonesia |
36% |
|
South Africa |
22% |
|
Pakistan |
9% |
|
Germany |
70% |
|
France |
66% |
|
United Kingdom |
60% |
Sources: UNESCO; PRS.
The NEP recommends that for increasing GER, capacity of existing higher education institutes will have to be improved by restructuring and expanding existing institutes. It recommends that all institutes should aim to be large multidisciplinary institutes (with enrolments in thousands), and there should be one such institution in or near every district by 2030. Further, institutions should have the option to run open distance learning and online programmes to improve access to higher education.
Foundational literacy and numeracy
The NEP states that a large proportion of the students currently enrolled in elementary school have not attained foundational literacy and numeracy (the ability to read and understand basic text, and carry out basic addition and subtraction). It recommends that every child should attain foundational literacy and numeracy by grade three.
Table 4 highlights the results of the National Achievement Survey 2017 on the learning levels of students at Grade 3 in language and mathematics. The results of the survey suggest that only 57% students in Grade 3 are able to solve basic numeracy skills related to addition and subtraction.
Table 4: NAS results on learning level of Grade-3 students
|
Learning level (Grade 3) |
Percentage of students |
|
Ability to read small texts with comprehension (Language) |
68% |
|
Ability to read printed scripts on classroom walls such as poems, posters (Language) |
65% |
|
Solving simple daily life addition and subtraction problems with 3 digits (Mathematics) |
57% |
|
Analyses and applies the appropriate number operation in a situation (Mathematics) |
59% |
Sources: National Achievement Survey (2017) dashboard, NCERT; PRS.
To achieve universal foundational literacy and numeracy, the Policy recommends setting up a National Mission on Foundational Literacy and Numeracy under the MHRD. All state governments must prepare implementation plans to achieve these goals by 2025. A national repository of high-quality resources on foundational literacy and numeracy will be made available on government’s e-learning platform (DIKSHA). Other measures to be taken in this regard include: (i) filling teacher vacancies at the earliest, (ii) ensuring a pupil to teacher ratio of 30:1 for effective teaching, and (iii) training teachers to impart foundational literacy and numeracy.
Effective governance of schools
The Policy states that establishing primary schools in every habitation across the country has helped increase access to education. However, it has led to the development of schools with low number of students. The small size of schools makes it operationally and economically challenging to deploy teachers and critical physical resources (such as library books, sports equipment).
With respect to this observation, the distribution of schools by enrolment size can be seen in the table below. Note that, as of September 2016, more than 55% of primary schools in the country had an enrolment below 60 students.
Table 5: Distribution of schools by enrolment size
|
Strength (Grade) |
Below 30 |
31-60 |
61-90 |
91-120 |
121-150 |
151-200 |
More than 200 |
|
Primary schools (Class 1-5) |
28.0% |
27.5% |
16.0% |
10.3% |
6.3% |
5.6% |
6.4% |
|
Upper primary schools (Class 6-8) |
14.8% |
27.9% |
18.7% |
15.0% |
8.4% |
7.2% |
8.0% |
|
Upper primary schools (Class 1-8) |
5.7% |
11.6% |
13.0% |
12.1% |
10.4% |
13.4% |
33.8% |
Sources: Flash Statistics on School Education 2016-17, UDISE; PRS.
While nearly 80% primary schools had a library, only 1.5% schools had a librarian (as of September 2016). The availability of facilities is better in higher senior secondary schools as compared to primary or upper primary schools.
Table 6: Distribution of schools with access to physical facilities
|
Facilities |
Primary schools (Class 1-5) |
Upper primary schools (Class 1-8) |
Higher senior secondary |
|
Library |
79.8% |
88.0% |
94.4% |
|
Librarian |
1.5% |
4.5% |
34.4% |
|
Playground |
54.9% |
65.5% |
84.3% |
|
Functional computer |
4.4% |
25.2% |
46.0% |
|
Internet connection |
0.9% |
4.2% |
67.9% |
Sources: Flash Statistics on School Education 2016-17, UDISE; PRS.
To overcome the challenges associated with development of small schools, the NEP recommends grouping schools together to form a school complex. The school complex will consist of one secondary school and other schools, aanganwadis in a 5-10 km radius. This will ensure: (i) adequate number of teachers for all subjects in a school complex, (ii) adequate infrastructural resources, and (iii) effective governance of schools.
Restructuring of Higher Education Institutes
The NEP notes that the higher education ecosystem in the country is severely fragmented. The present complex nomenclature of higher education institutes (HEIs) in the country such as ‘deemed to be university’, ‘affiliating university’, ‘affiliating technical university', ‘unitary university’ shall be replaced simply by 'university'.
According to the All India Survey on Higher Education 2018-19, India has 993 universities, 39,931 colleges, and 10,725 stand-alone institutions (technical institutes such as polytechnics or teacher training institutes).
Table 7: Number of Universities in India according to different categories
|
Type of university |
Number of universities |
|
Central University |
46 |
|
Central Open University |
1 |
|
Institutes of National Importance |
127 |
|
State Public University |
371 |
|
Institution Under State Legislature Act |
5 |
|
State Open University |
14 |
|
State Private University |
304 |
|
State Private Open University |
1 |
|
Deemed University- Government |
34 |
|
Deemed University- Government Aided |
10 |
|
Deemed University- Private |
80 |
|
Total |
993 |
Sources: All India Survey on Higher Education 2018-19; PRS.
The NEP recommends that all HEIs should be restructured into three categories: (i) research universities focusing equally on research and teaching, (ii) teaching universities focusing primarily on teaching, and (iii) degree granting colleges primarily focused on undergraduate teaching. All such institutions will gradually move towards full autonomy - academic, administrative, and financial.
Setting up a National Research Foundation to boost research
The NEP states that investment on research and innovation in India, at only 0.69% of GDP, lags behind several other countries. India’s expenditure on research and development (R&D) in the last few years can be seen in the figure below. Note that the total investment on R&D in India as a proportion of GDP has been stagnant at around 0.7% of GDP. In 2018-19, the total expenditure on R&D in India was Rs 1,23,848 crore. Of this, Rs 72,732 crore (58%) of expenditure was by government, and the remaining (42%) was by private industry.
Figure 2: R&D Expenditure in India (2011-12 to 2018-19)
Sources: S&T Indicators Table 2019-20, Ministry of Science and Technology, March 2020; PRS.
Figure 3: Comparison of R&D expenditure in India with other countries (2017)
Sources: S&T Indicators Table 2019-20, Ministry of Science and Technology, March 2020; PRS.
To boost research, the NEP recommends setting up an independent National Research Foundation (NRF) for funding and facilitating quality research in India. The Foundation will act as a liaison between researchers and relevant branches of government as well as industry. Specialised institutions which currently fund research, such as the Department of Science and Technology, and the Indian Council of Medical Research, will continue to fund independent projects. The Foundation will collaborate with such agencies to avoid duplication.
Digital education
The NEP states that alternative modes of quality education should be developed when in-person education is not possible, as observed during the recent pandemic. Several interventions must be taken to ensure inclusive digital education such as: (i) developing two-way audio and video interfaces for holding online classes, and (ii) use of other channels such as television, radio, mass media in multiple languages to ensure reach of digital content where digital infrastructure is lacking.
In this context, we analyse: (i) the availability of computer and internet across households in India, and (ii) ability to use computer or internet by persons in the age group of 5-14. As of 2017-18, the access to internet and computer was relatively poor in rural areas. Only 4.4% of rural households have access to a computer (excludes smartphones), and nearly 15% have access to internet facility. Amongst urban households, 42% have access to internet.
Table 8: Access to Computer and Internet across households (2017-18)
|
Access to ICT |
Rural |
Urban |
Overall |
|
Households having computer |
4.4% |
23.4% |
10.7% |
|
Households having internet facility |
14.9% |
42.0% |
23.8% |
Note: Computer includes desktop, laptop, notebook, tablet. It does not include smartphone.
Sources: Household Social Consumption on Education (2017-18), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, July 2020; PRS.
Table 9: Ability to use Computer and Internet across persons in the age group 5-14 (2017-18)
|
Ability to use ICT |
Rural |
Urban |
Overall |
|
Ability to use computer |
5.1% |
21.3% |
9.1% |
|
Ability to use internet |
5.1% |
19.7% |
8.8% |
Note: Ability to use computer means to be able to carry out any of the tasks such as: (i) copying or moving a file/folder, (ii) sending emails, (iii) transferring files between a computer and other devices, among others. Ability to use internet means to be able to use the internet browser for website navigation, using e-mail or social networking applications.
Sources: Household Social Consumption on Education (2017-18), Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, July 2020; PRS.
Public spending on education to be increased to 6% of GDP
The recommendation of increasing public spending on Education to 6% of GDP was first made by the National Policy on Education 1968 and reiterated by the 1986 Policy. NEP 2020 reaffirms the recommendation of increasing public spending on education to 6% of GDP. In 2017-18, the public spending on education (includes spending by centre and states) was budgeted at 4.43% of GDP.
Table 10: Public spending on Education (2013-2018)
|
Year |
Public expenditure (Rs crore) |
% of GDP |
|
2013-14 |
4,30,879 |
3.84% |
|
2014-15 |
5,06,849 |
4.07% |
|
2015-16 |
5,77,793 |
4.20% |
|
2016-17 |
6,64,265 |
4.32% |
|
2017-18 |
7,56,945 |
4.43% |
Sources: 312th Report, Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, March 2020; PRS.
Figure 4: Comparison of public spending on Education in India with other countries as % of GDP (2015)
Sources: Educational Statistics at Glance 2018, MHRD; PRS.
In the figure below, we look at the disparities within states in education spending. In 2020-21, states in India have allocated 15.7% of their budgeted expenditure towards education. States such as Delhi, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra have allocated more than 18% of their expenditure on Education for the year 2020-21. On the other hand, Telangana (7.4%), Andhra Pradesh (12.1%) and Punjab (12.3%) lack in spending on education, as compared to the average of states.
Figure 5: Budgeted allocation on Education (2020-21) by states in India
Note: AP is Andhra Pradesh, UP is Uttar Pradesh, HP is Himachal Pradesh and WB is West Bengal.
Sources: Analysis of various state budget documents; PRS.
For a detailed summary of the National Education Policy, see here.