Análisis socioeconómico de la región

In general, experts consider that India is not investing adequate financial resources to provide quality education for all (Dreze and Sen, 1995; Tilak, 2004) as reflected in the trend of financial allocations made for elementary education through Annual as well as Five Year Plans. According to the Human Development Report (UNDP, 2004), India ranks at number 78 in terms of share of public expenditure on education in Gross National Product (GNP), out of the 137 countries on which data is available. Successive governments have pledged to increase public spending on education to at least 6% of the GNP, so that education, and elementary education in particular, does not suffer from a paucity of financial resources. In fact, this was part of the proposals made by the Education Commission (GoI, 1966) and reiterated in the National Policy on Education in 1986 and 1992. However, as of 1990-1991, as the Eighth Five-Year Plan unfolded, only 3.9 % of GNP was being invested in education in India, and it has been consistently in decline ever since. During the Ninth Plan (1997-2002), for example, only 3.7% of GNP was spent on education. Education has been made part of the Common Minimum Programme of the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, but this only outlines the issues in vague terms, with a lack of coherence. One of these is the promise to increase government spending on education to at least 6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), but this has remained an elusive target.

The rate of increase in investment in education has been very slow over the last sixty years as the proportion of GNP invested in education has increased from about 0.72% in 1951-1952 to about 4% of GNP in 2001-2002. However, expenditure on education in the total budget – plan and non-plan components – increased substantially in the year 2001-200210. However, an analysis of budgeted expenditure for the four years 1999-2000 to 2002-2003 shows that this increase was almost entirely absorbed by non-plan expenditure, most of which goes to meet teachers’ salaries. The share of planned expenditure, which contributes to the development of the system, went up only marginally from 15.18% to 16.97%. Planned expenditure on education as proportion of planned expenditure in all sectors by the central government increased from around 9% to little above 10% between 1999 and 2002. However, during the same period, both the share of education in total plan expenditure as well as total expenditure by the states, fell sharply from around 13% to 9%. In 1986-1987, the share of central and state government expenditure (plan and non-plan) on education relative to the total expenditure (plan and non-plan) of the states and the centre was 8.6%, which increased to 11.0% in 2000-2001, but has since decreased, reaching 9.8% in 2003-2004 (GoI, 2004; see also Govinda and Biswal, 2006: 34-37). This aspect requires closer examination to see if the fall is real and uniform across states, triggered by poor fiscal conditions of some selected states, or due to gradual absorption of plan expenditure into non-plan by the states.

2.9.1 Spending on Elementary Education in Recent Years

In the last few years, a substantial shift in financial allocations has taken place in favour of elementary education. However, since 1990-2000, the share of elementary education in the total education expenditure (plan and non-plan) both by the central

10

Plan expenditure is determined by the Planning Commission, and refers to capital and current spending on development projects. Non-plan expenditure is regulated by the Finance Commission, and refers to spending on maintenance (of facilities, projects, etc.).

and state governments has only marginally fluctuated around an average of 48-49%. All 28 states put together spent 49.5% of the total education expenditure (revenue account) on elementary education in 2000-2001. However, variations across states are very wide, ranging from 4.77% in Bihar to 68.46% in Madhya Pradesh for the same year. Since 1990, the share of public expenditure on elementary education as percentage of GDP has changed only marginally; it was around 1.78% of GDP in 1990-1991 and after fourteen years it was almost the same with a figure of around 1.89% in 2004-2005 (GoI, 2007a: xlix). The recent move made by the Government of India to create a Prathamik Shiksha Kosh (a nonlapseable central fund for elementary education) by levying a surcharge of 2% on income tax, corporate tax, excise and custom duties, and service tax is a radical move to significantly enhance the funding for elementary education. The surcharge has recently been increased to 3% with a view to financing the development of secondary education also.

2.9.2 Fund Flow, Utilization and Accountability

With a view to cutting down on bureaucratic delays in channeling resources for action in the field, State Implementation Societies were established under DPEP. The system with minor modifications has been extended to cover most of the states under the SSA. This undoubtedly has helped overcome such avoidable situations as funds for education received by the state exchequer from the central government not finding their way to the schools where they ought to be spent. However, flow and utilization of resources also depend on the capacity of the various states. For instance, a review of the central grants released against approved outlays under the SSA and the DPEP during 2002-2003 showed that at least 12 states including Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal utilized less than 50% of the grants received. Such gross under-utilization of funds in some states would have serious consequences on all aspects of schooling, including access and participation. This issue requires analytical studies to understand inter-district and intra-district variations in the level of fund utilization and their impacts on school participation.

A conscious effort has been made in recent years to transfer funds directly to schools and school level management bodies for the implementation of specific components of the SSA. For instance, several states have resorted to transferring funds particularly for the construction of school buildings as well as for the repair and maintenance of decentralized management structures such as panchayati raj bodies, School Management Committees and Village Education Committees. In addition, every school is given direct funding to the tune of Rs. 5000 to Rs. 7000 every year for the purchase of teaching and learning materials and the upkeep of school premises. Every permanent teacher in a primary school receives a grant of Rs. 500 per year for developing innovative and locally relevant teaching and learning materials. It is expected that all these funds are utilised carefully, and the use of these funds is subjected to a process of social audit at the community level. Again several questions need more focused empirical analysis: while decentralization of fund flow and utilisation should be welcome, it is important to find out if this has helped to improve the functioning of schools; is any social audit taking place to ensure effective utilization of resources?; and how is such a direct transfer of funds addressing school- specific requirements? These are important questions, answers to which could make a vast difference to the functioning of the schools and, in turn, on the level of participation of children.