Macro and Fiscal Landscape

of the State of Uttarakhand

A close-up of a state report

Description automatically generated

1
 Macro and Fiscal Brief: Uttarakhand
March 2025
Contents:
1. Summary
2. Demography and Employment
3. Economic Structure (Growth and Sectoral Composition)
4. Socio-Economic Indicators (Education and Health)
5. Fiscal Indicators
6. Devolution to Uttarakhand from Centre in 14th & 15th Finance Commission
7. Uttarakhand’s Fiscal Rules
8. Extra Slides on Fiscal Indicators
9. Annexure
2
1. Summary and Overview of the
State of Uttarakhand

3
 Demography and Employment

➢ As per 2023 population projections, Uttarakhand has a population of 11.6 million and represents 0.8 percent of India's
total population. Uttarakhand’s projected population growth rate at 1.0 percent is faster than the national average
of 0.9 per cent as of 2022-23.

➢ The State’s population density (213 persons per sq. km.) and dependency ratio (52.4 percent) are both lower than
their respective national averages. According to these 2023 projections, only 35.9 percent of its population resides in
urban areas.

➢ As per Census 2011, sex ratio of 886 females per 1,000 males in the State is lower than the national average.

➢ The annual Unemployment Rate in the State has decelerated to 4.5 percent, but it has remained above national
estimate since 2017-18.

➢ The Female Labour Force Participation rate has improved and is close to the national average as of 2022-23.

➢ The working population in the State is predominantly concentrated in Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing (47.4
percent); Services (31.4 percent); and Construction and Manufacturing sectors (20.3 percent) .

Source: i. Census of India 2011, Population Projections Report (2011 – 2036); ii. Periodic Labour Force Survey 2022-23 (PLFS)
4
 Economic Structure (Growth and Sectoral Composition)

➢ Uttarakhand’s real GSDP has grown at an average rate of 5.4 percent during the period from 2012-13 to 2021-22,
which is marginally lower than the national average growth of 5.6 percent during the same period.

➢ The State has a small share of 1.2 percent in the country’s GDP (2021-22). Its nominal per capita income is around
forty percent higher than the national per capita income (2021-22).

➢ The Industry sector has a 48.6 percent share of the State’s GSVA, which is primarily driven by Manufacturing (36.0
percent), and Construction (8.3 percent) with minor contributions from Electricity, and Mining and Quarrying. The
Services sector contributes 40.8 percent share to the GSVA, within which the largest contributors are Trade, Hotels
and Restaurants (13.7 percent); Other Services (7.5 percent); and Transport Storage and Communication (6.8
percent). The Agriculture sector contributes only 10.6 per cent to the State’s GSVA.

➢ Out of all the major sectors, Other Services, Public Administration, Banking and Insurance and Trade, Hotels, and
Restaurants have witnessed the higher growth during the period from 2012-13 to 2021-22.

Source: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), as of August 2023.

5
 Socio-Economic Indicators (Health and Education)
➢ As per Census 2011, Uttarakhand’s literacy rate in 2011 at 78.8 percent is higher than the national average of 73 percent.

➢ As of 2016-17, the State has a lower school dropout rate (9.1 percent for Classes VIII to X) but also a lower pass
percentage rate of 84.7 and 82 percent for Classes X and XII, compared to their respective national benchmarks.

➢ The Gross Enrolment Ratio of 75.8 per cent at the higher secondary level (2015-16) and 45.7 percent at the higher
education level (2021) are both higher than their respective national averages.

➢ Additionally, for people aged between 18 to 23 years, the Gender Parity Index in higher education (the ratio of girls to
boys enrolled in higher education institutions) at 1.14 and the college density at 40 colleges per 100,000 population,
are both above their national benchmarks as of 2021.

➢ As of 2020, life expectancy in the State at 70.3 years is close to the national average (70.0 years).

➢ The infant mortality at 24 deaths per 1,000 live births and the total fertility rate of 1.9 children per woman are both
lower than their respective national average in 2020 and 2019-21. The percentage of fully immunized children (80.8 per
cent) is above the national average for 2019-21.

➢ The household access to drinking water (95.5 percent) is close to the national average, but their access to sanitation
(77.9 percent) and electricity (99.4 percent) are both higher than the national benchmarks, as of 2019-21.
Source: i. Census of India 2011; ii. Unified District Information System for Education (UDISE) 2016-17; iii. All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) 2020-21; iv. Sample 6
Registration System 2020; v. National Family Health Survey (2019-21).
 State of Public Finances and Tax Devolutions
➢ Uttarakhand has seen a consistent rise in its Public Debt since 2014 but as of 2022-23 public debt at 26.5 percent of its GSDP was
lower than that of a median State by over 4 percentage points. Its Contingent Liabilities have declined consistently and as o f 2021-
22 these were 0.1 percent of its GSDP. In 2022-23, the State ran Fiscal and Primary Deficits of 2.7 and 0.7 percent of its GSDP
respectively, both lower than a median State. The State runs a revenue surplus of 0.8 percent of GSDP in 2022-23, which is again
better than that of a median State (0.4 percent deficit).

➢ In 2022-23, State’s Total Revenue Receipts at about 17.2 percent of its GSDP (Own Tax, Own Non-Tax, and shared by the Centre)
were lower than what a median State collected. And, Total Expenditure at 19.9 percent of its GSDP was also 0.6 percentage poi nts
lower than that of a median State. As of 2022-23 its expenditure-to-GSDP ratio is slightly above that of the median State, but its
revenue expenditure-to-GSDP ratio is below that of a median State.

➢ Debt Sustainability Analysis shows that the State is on a predicted upward trajectory of higher debt in the next five years under the
baseline scenario (where debt level, primary deficit, real GDP growth, real effective interest rate remain as they are). Although the
outstanding contingent liabilities are not very high for the State, predicted outcomes in the benign scenarios of higher grow th and
lower primary deficit are not optimistic for the next five years.

➢ Uttarakhand’s share in Taxes from Centre, as per the FC recommendations, remained consistent at 1.1 percent under both 14th a nd
15th FCs. The State’s share in the total Grants-in-Aid increased by 3.5 percentage points under the 15th FC, compared to the 14th FC,
at 4.2 percent.

Source: Reserve Bank of India, State Finances Report 2022-23.

Note: For calculation of median State, variable as a percentage of GSDP was computed for each State, with the median across 2 2 major States shown (excluding all Union
Territories and North Eastern States, except Assam). 7
 Fiscal Rules

➢ As per recommendations of the 12 th FC, Uttarakhand Fiscal Responsibility Act and Budget Management (UFRBM) Act was enacted in
2005. Since 2005, the act has been amended in 2011, 2016, 2020 and 2023.

• Revenue Deficit: The Uttarakhand FRBM Act 2005 required the State to eliminate its revenue deficit within four financial years from
2005-06 to 2008-09, with a yearly reduction in the revenue deficit as a percentage of GSDP. The 2011 amendment extended this deadline,
mandating that the revenue deficit be eliminated from 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2015.
• Fiscal Deficit: Uttarakhand FRBM Act of 2005 mandated the State reduce its fiscal deficit to no more than 3 percent of GSDP from 2004 -
05 to 2008-09. An amendment in 2011 permitted an increase to 3.5 percent for the fiscal years 2011-12 and 2012-13, after which the limit
was reverted to 3 percent for 2013-14 and 2014-15. The 2016 amendment required the State to anchor its fiscal deficit at 3percent from
2016-17 to 2019-20, allowing for a maximum fiscal deficit of 3.5 percent, contingent on fulfilling certain conditions. The 2020 amendment
permitted a 2 percent increase above the 3 percent limit for 2020-21, with specific conditions tied to clearly specified measurable reforms.
These include - implementation of One Nation One Card system; Ease of Doing Business reforms; Urban Local Body/Utility reforms; and
Power Sector Reforms. The 2023 amendment established limits of 4.0 percent for 2021-22, 3.5 percent for 2022-23, and 3.0 percent for
2023-24 to 2025-26.
• Debt: Uttarakhand FRBM Act of 2005 stipulated that total liabilities should not exceed 25 percent of estimated GSDP from April 1, 2005
to March 31, 2015. The 2011 amendment set limits on total estimated debt liability for the four years from April 1, 2011, to March 31, 2015.
The 2023 amendment mandated that total liabilities as a percentage of GSDP shall not exceed 32.5 percent by 2025 -26.
• Fiscal Discipline: As per the State Finances Audit Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), during the period from
2017-18 to 2021-22, the State met its revenue and fiscal deficit targets for years only 2020-21 and 2021-22. But the total outstanding debt
targets was met only for one-year 2017-18 during this five-year period.

Source: State Finance Audit Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).
8
2. Demography and Employment

• Population data covers the Census period 1951 – 2011;

• Population Projections cover the period 2012 – 2023;

• Employment data covers the period 2017-18 to 2022-23.

9
Table 1: Area and Demography of Uttarakhand
Decadal Change (b/w 2011
Indicator Most Recent Value As of Year India’s estimates for benchmark (iii)
and 2021)

Area (i) 53,483 million sq. km. 2011 - 1.6 % of national total
Forest Cover 24,305 sq. km. 2021 +0.1 % points 3.4 % of national total
Total Population 11.6 million persons 2023* - 0.8 % of national total

-0.2 % points (b/w 2012 and

Population Growth Rate 1.0 % 2023* 0.9 % (India)
2021)

Population Density (ii) 213 persons per sq. km. 2021* - 415 persons per sq. km. (India)
Dependency Ratio 52.4 % 2021* -14.3 % points 55.7 % (India)

Sex Ratio 886 females per 1000 males 2011 - 914 females per 1000 males (India)

Urban Population 35.9 % of State population 2023* +4.7 % points 35.1 % of total population (India)

Rural Population 64.1 % of State population 2023* -4.7 % points 64.9 % of total population (India)

Urbanization Rate 4.8% 2023* -9.2% (b/w 2011 and 2021) 3.7% (India)
* Projected numbers are starred
Source: Census, Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and “Population Projections for Indian States 2011-2036” by the Technical Group on Population
Projections, National Commission on Population Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Note:
i. Area figure for India (national total) includes the area under unlawful occupation of Pakistan and China. The area includes 78,114 [Link] under illegal occupation of Pakistan, 5180 [Link]
illegally handed over by Pakistan to China and 37,555 [Link] under illegal occupation of China.
ii. For working out the density of India, the entire area and population of those portions of Jammu & Kashmir which are under illegal occupation of Pakistan and China have not been taken into
account, except for 2011 census.
10
iii. India’s estimates for benchmark pertain to the actual data for India (except for Area, Forest Cover, and Total Population where the State’s share in India’s estimates have been shown).
Uttarakhand has a share of 0.84 percent of National Population which has been projected to be very stable
across the decades and its Population Growth Rate is higher than the national average since 2017

Uttarakhand's Share in Total Population Projected Population Growth 2012-2023, %

(Projections for 2021-2023), %
2.0
1.0
0.9 1.6
0.82 0.82 0.82 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.84
Percentage

0.8
1.0

Percentage
1.2
0.7
0.6 0.8
0.5 0.9

0.4

0.0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Uttarakhand India

Source: Census data (1951-2011) is sourced from Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. Projections are sourced from the “Report of the Technical
group on Population Projections” (July 2020), by National Commission on Population and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Note: i. Re-casted population data for Uttarakhand for the years before 2000 are taken directly from the source; ii. Census Population Projections are constructed using the
Cohort Component Method, where the components of population change (fertility, mortality and net migration) are used to project the base population each year separately
for each birth cohort (persons born in a given year). The detailed methodology can be found in Chapter 2, Population Projection Report 2011-2036; iii. Number for India has
been taken directly from the source. 11
 As per Census of 2011, Uttarakhand ranked as the twentieth-largest State in terms of its
share in the total population

Share of States in Population of India according to Census 2011 (%)

18 16.5
16
14
12
Percentage

10 9.3 8.6
7.5
8 7.0
6.0 6.0 5.7
6 5.0 5.0
3.5 0.8
4 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.3
2.1 2.1
2 1.4 1.0
0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01
0

Source: Census data (1951-2011) is sourced from Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

12
Dependency Ratio in Uttarakhand remained above national estimates in 2011 and it is expected to fall below
national estimate in 2021*. Population Density has increased over the decades and has consistently remained
below the all-India figure

Dependency Ratio Population Density

((Pop < 15 & >= 60)/Pop 15-59) (population per sq. km.)
500 415
100
400

Number of Persons
80
55.7
300
Percentage

60

40 200
52.4 213
20 100

0 0
2001 2011 2021* 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021*
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Census data and “Population Projections for Indian States 2011-2036” by the Technical Group on Population Projections, National
Commission on Population Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Note: i. Re-casted population data for Uttarakhand for the years before 2000 are taken directly from the source; ii. Number for India has been13taken
directly from the source.
 Urban Population in Uttarakhand remained above national estimates as of 2011

Urban Population, Percentage of Total State Population

(%)
50
35.9
40
Percentage
30
35.1
20

10

0
1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011 2021* 2023*
Uttarakhand India

Source: Census data and “Population Projections for Indian States 2011-2036” by the Technical Group on Population Projections, National Commission on
Population Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.
Note: i. Re-casted population data for Uttarakhand for the years before 2000 are taken directly from the source; ii. Number for India has been taken directly
from the source.
14
Uttarakhand, Scheduled Castes (SCs) constituted 18.8 percent of its total population while
Scheduled Tribes constituted 2.9 percent of its total population as per the 2011 Census

Share of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Population by States and UTs - Census
100 2011
80
Percentage

60

40 18.8 2.9

20

Schedule Caste (SCs) Schedule Tribes (STs)

Source: Census data for 2011 is sourced from Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.

15
Uttarakhand ranked as eighth largest among States with regard to the percentage of SC
population. It is ranked as bottom fifth with regard to the percentage of ST population
16

States and UTs Ranked by Proportion of SCs - States and UTs Ranked by Proportion of STs -
Census 2011 100 Census 2011
50
80
40

Percentage
60
Percentage

30 18.8
40 2.9
20

10 20

0 0
Madhya Pradesh
Delhi

Chhattisgarh
Tripura

Odisha

Puducherry

D & N Haveli
Punjab

West Bengal

Bihar
Uttar Pradesh
Haryana

Mizoram
Kerala
Rajasthan

Maharashtra
All India
Uttarakhand

Goa
Jharkhand

Daman & Diu

Himachal Pradesh

Tamil Nadu

Gujarat
Sikkim
Karnataka
Chandigarh

Andhra Pradesh

Meghalaya

Odisha
D & N Haveli

Sikkim

Goa
Chhattisgarh

Madhya Pradesh
Mizoram
Nagaland

Jharkhand

Uttarakhand
Meghalaya

Gujarat

All India

West Bengal
Maharashtra

Tamil Nadu
Assam

Tripura

A & N Islands
Rajasthan

Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka

Kerala
Daman & Diu
Jammu & Kashmir

Bihar
Lakshadweep

Himachal Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh
Manipur

Manipur
Arunachal Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Assam
Source: Census data for 2011 is sourced from Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home Source: Census data for 2011 is sourced from Office of the Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs. Affairs.

Note: As per the census data, Lakshadweep, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Andaman & Nicobar Note: As per the census data, Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Delhi, and Puducherry do not report any ST
Islands do not report any SC Population. population.
Sex Ratio at Birth (female births per 1000 male births in a given population) as per the National Family Health
Survey (NFHS) for Uttarakhand is higher than the national estimates as of 2019-21. Census Sex Ratio of the
child population (0-6 age group) has remained below national estimates as of 2011

Sex Ratio at Birth for Children Born in the Five Sex Ratio of Child Population in Age Group 0-6
Years Preceding the Survey (NFHS I – V) (Census)
1000 1000

984
Females per 1000 males

Females per 1000 males

950 950

914
900 929 900
888
886
850 850

800 800
2005-06 2015-16 2019-21 1991 2001 2011
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: NFHS I – V Source: Census of India

Note: Re-casted population data for Uttarakhand for the years before 2000 are
taken directly from the source 17
Annual Unemployment Rate for Uttarakhand decelerated to 4.5 percent, but it has remained above national
estimate since 2017-18. Female Labour Force Participation has improved and has remained above national
estimates as of 2022-23

Unemployment Rate, Age 15 Years and Above (%) Female Labour Force Participation Rate, Age 15
Years and Above (%)
10
50 38.7
8
40
Percentage

6 4.5

Percentage
30
4 37.0
20
3.2
2
10
0
0
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Annual Report 2022-2023.

Note: i. Number for India has been taken directly from the source. ii. The Rural and Urban Female Labour Force Participation Rate (FLFPR) and Distribution of Female Workers
by Employment Status, is as per the Usual Status (PS+SS) approach, considering both Rural and Urban labour force for the age group 15 years and above. The PLFS uses two
reference periods for measuring employment status, Principal Status (PS) and Subsidiary Status (SS). The PS+SS category combines information from both reference 18 periods
to determine the usual status of employment.
In Uttarakhand, Female Labour Force Participation is predominantly higher in rural areas.
Additionally, the majority of the female workforce comprises of Self-Employed workers

Rural and Urban Female Labour Force Share of Female Workers by Employment
Participation Rate In Uttarakhand, Age 15 Years Status In Uttarakhand (Rural and Urban) (%)
and Above (%)
100
50 83.1
45.7 80
40

Percentage
Percentage

30 60

20 40
14.6
16.8
10 20
2.3
0 0
2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
Rural (Uttarakhand) Urban (Uttarakhand) Self-employed Regular Wage/Salary Casual Labour

Source: Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Annual Report 2022-2023.

Note: The Rural and Urban Female Labour Force Participation Rate (FLFPR) and Distribution of Female Workers by Employment Status, is as per the Usual Status (PS+SS)
approach, considering both Rural and Urban labour force for the age group 15 years and above. The PLFS uses two reference periods for measuring employment status,
Principal Status (PS) and Subsidiary Status (SS). The PS+SS category combines information from both reference periods to determine the usual status of employment.19
 Working population in Uttarakhand is predominantly concentrated in Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing,
Services, Construction and Manufacturing sectors. Manufacturing constituted 9.9 percent of the total share of
workers in 2022-23. The proportion of workers involved in Mining and Quarrying is below national estimates,
and for Other Industries it is above the national estimates

Share of Workers in Agriculture, Share of Workers in Share of Workers in

Forestry and Fishing, % Manufacturing, % Services, %
50
60 20
47.4
50 40
15
Percentage

11.4 31.4
40
45.8 10 30
30
9.9
28.9
20 5 20

Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Annual Report 2022-2023.
Note: i. Number for India has been taken directly from the source; ii. Services includes Transportation and Storage; Accommodation and Food Service Activities; Information and
Communication; Financial and Insurance Activities; Real Estate Activities; Professional, Scientific and Technical Activities; Administrative and Support Service Activities; Public
Administration and Defense; Compulsory Social Security; Education; Human Health and Social Work Activities; Arts, Entertainment and Recreation; Activities of Households as
Employers; Undifferentiated Goods and Services Producing Activities of Households for Own Use; Activities of Extraterritorial Organizations and Bodies; Wholesale and Retail Trade,
20
Repair of Motor Vehicles and Motorcycles; and other Services.
 Working population in Uttarakhand is predominantly concentrated in Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing,
Services, Construction and Manufacturing sectors. Manufacturing constituted 9.9 percent of the total share of
workers in 2022-23. The proportion of workers involved in Mining and Quarrying is below national estimates,
and for Other Industries it is above the national estimates

Share of Workers in Share of Workers in Mining and Share of Workers in Other

Construction (%) Quarrying Industries (%)
0.9
20
1.0 1.0
15 13.0 0.8
0.3 0.8
Percentage

0.6 0.6
10
0.4 0.4
5 10.4 0.01 0.2 0.5
0.2
0 0.0 0.0

Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) Annual Report 2022-2023.

Note: i. Number for India has been taken directly from the source; ii. Other industries include, Electricity, Gas, Steam and Air Conditioning Supply; and Water
Supply, Sewerage, Waste Management and Remediation Activities.
21
 3. Economic Structure
(Growth and Sectoral Composition)

• Income data covers the fiscal period 1990-91 – 2022-23

22
Table 2A: State Domestic Product, Per Capita Income, Sectoral Shares, Inflation, FDI inflow and Exports for Uttarakhand

Indicator Most Recent Value States’ Average Decadal Change, % (b/w 2012-13 and 2021-22) Source

Rs. 27,215,948(Lakh) Rs. 2,347,101,174 (Lakh;

Nominal Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) + 106.8% growth MoSPI; EPWRF
(FY 2021-22) India) (FY 2021-22)

Nominal GSDP share in India’s Nominal GDP, % 1.2% (FY 2021-22) - - 0.2% points MoSPI; EPWRF

5.4% 5.6%
Real Gross State Domestic Product Growth Rate,% (Decadal avg. b/w 2012-13 and (Decadal avg. b/w 2012- + 0.9% points MoSPI; EPWRF
2021-22) 13 and 2021-22 for India)

Rs. 237,321 Rs. 171,498 (India)

Nominal Per Capita GSDP + 85.7% growth MoSPI; EPWRF
(FY 2021-2022) (FY 2021-22)
Nominal Per Capita GSDP in India’s Nominal Per Capita - 0.2 points
1.4 (FY 2021-22) - MoSPI; EPWRF
GSDP (Ratio)
Share of Agricultural Sector to Total Gross State Value 10.6% 19.7%
- 1.9% points MoSPI; EPWRF
Added (GSVA) (Nominal), % (FY 2021-22) (FY 2021-22)
48.6% 29.3%
Share of Industry Sector to Total GSVA (Nominal), % - 5.1% points MoSPI; EPWRF
(FY 2021-2022) (FY 2021-22)
Within Industry: Share of Manufacturing Sector to Total 36.0% 14.8% MoSPI; EPWRF
- 5.1% points
GSVA (Nominal), % (FY 2021-22) (FY 2021-22)
Within Industry: Share of Construction Sector to Total 8.3% 7.7%
+ 0.7% points MoSPI; EPWRF
GSVA (Nominal), % (FY 2021-22) (FY 2021-22)
40.8% 51.0%
Share of Services Sector to Total GSVA (Nominal), % + 6.9% points MoSPI; EPWRF
(FY 2021-2022) (FY 2021-22)
Within Services: Share of Trade and Hospitality Sector 13.7% 11.3%
+ 2.4% points MoSPI; EPWRF
to Total GSVA (Nominal), % (FY 2021-2022) (FY 2021-22)
Within Services: Share of Transport Storage and 6.8% 5.9%
+ 0.3% points MoSPI; EPWRF
Communication Sector to Total GSVA (Nominal), % (FY 2021-2022) (FY 2021-22)

Source: Data is taken from MOSPI, as of August 2023.

Note: i. States’ Average for shares are simple averages of each State’s/UT’s share for that year; ii. States' average growth rates are calculated as the simple average of each State/UT's growth rate for23
that
year.
Table 2B: State Domestic Product, Per Capita Income, Sectoral Shares, Inflation, FDI inflow and Exports for Uttarakhand
Decadal Change, % (b/w 2013-14
Indicator Most Recent Value States’ Average Source
to 2022-23)

Share of Agricultural Sector to 9.0% 15.8%

-1.6% points MoSPI; EPWRF
Total GSDP (Nominal), % (FY 2022-23) (FY 2022-23)

Share of Industry Sector to Total 44.0% 25.3%

-5.7% points MoSPI; EPWRF
GSDP (Nominal), % (FY 2022-23) (FY 2022-23)

Within Industry: Share of

30.1% 13.1%
Manufacturing Sector to Total -6.4% points MoSPI; EPWRF
(FY 2022-23) (FY 2022-23)
GSDP (Nominal), %

Share of Service Sector to Total 41.4% 42.6%

+8.1% points MoSPI; EPWRF
GSDP (Nominal), % (FY 2022-23) (FY 2022-23)

Inflation Rate (based on Consumer +6.2% + 5.5 %

+0.5% points MoSPI; EPWRF
Price Index) (FY 2022-23) (FY 2022-23)

Department for Promotion

0.1 % of India FDI Inflow 0.1 % of India FDI Inflow (b/w
FDI Inflow 3% of India FDI Inflow of Industry and Internal
(2023-24) 2020-21 and 2023-24)
Trade (DPIIT)
392 Million $ (b/w 2014-15 and
Exports 1,778 Million $ (2022-23) 15,346 Million $ Multiple Sources*
2022-23)
Source: i. Data on sectoral shares to GSDP is taken from MOSPI, as of March 2024; ii. (*)Multiple sources for exports are various Issues of Economic Survey, Department of Economic Affairs,
([Link]); Various Issues of Bulletin on Foreign Trade Statistics, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
Note: i. FDI data is available State-wise in a cumulative format with the starting date as December 2019 till the month and year of the DPIIT publication; ii. The State average for FDI has been
calculated as the sum of all States/region divided by the number of States/regions, and this is divided by India's FDI inflow, multiplied by 100; iv. Benchmark number for exports is an24average
of all States/UT number.
Uttarakhand’s share in India's Nominal GDP and its Nominal Per Capita Income as a ratio to India’s
Per Capita Income both have been declining since 2010 but these have increased relative to 1994

Share of Uttarakhand's Nominal GSDP in Uttarakhand's Nominal Per Capita Income

India's Nominal GDP, % as a ratio to India's Nominal Per Capita
Income
2.0 2.0

1.6 1.6
1.4
1.2
Percentage

1.2 1.2

Ratio
0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0
1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022

Source: The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI). Back series with 2011-12 base has been taken from the Economic and Political Weekly Research Foundation
(EPWRF).
Note: i. GSDP refers to Gross State Domestic Product at current market prices; ii. As per EPWRF, this series is spliced with earlier GSDP series to generate the long-time series; iii. National
GDP is the National Gross Domestic Product of India at current market prices; iv. This series has been spliced with earlier GDP series to generate the long-time series; v. Back-casted
numbers for GSDP and Per Capita Income (before Uttarakhand was created in 2000) are taken directly from the source.
 Sectoral Gross State Value Added (GSVA): Uttarakhand vis-à-vis rest of India (FY2021-22)

• According to official estimates for FY 2021-22, Industry sector has a 48.6 percent share of Uttarakhand’s GSVA, whereas the States’
average stands lower at 29.3 percent. This sector is primarily driven by Manufacturing (36 percent), and Construction (8.3 pe rcent)
with minor contributions from Electricity (3.5 percent), and Mining and Quarrying (0.9 percent).

• For FY 2021-22, the Services sector contributes 40.8 percent share to the GSVA in Uttarakhand, while the States’ average stands at
51 percent. Within the services sector, the largest contributors are Trade, Hotels and Restaurants (13.7 percent); Other Serv ices (7.5
percent); and Transport, Storage and Communication (6.8 percent).

• For FY 2021-22, Uttarakhand’s Agriculture sector is 10.6 percent of its GSVA, lower than the States’ average of 19.7 percent.

• For FY 2021-22, Uttarakhand ranks 5 th out of 33 States and UTs in its share of GSVA in the Industry sector (48.6 percent) but ranks
25th in its share of GSVA in the Services Sector (40.8 percent).

Note: Gross State Value Added (GSVA) is defined as the sum of the value added by each of the sectors under agriculture, industry, and services. This series
currently is available at basic prices with 2011-12 base and it can be spliced with the earlier GSVA series to obtain the long-time series for this variable.
26
 Agriculture sector's share of GSVA remains significantly below the States’ average. Meanwhile,
Industry sector's share was well above the average of all States but it has been declining

Share of Agriculture Sector in Total GSVA, Share of Industry Sector in Total GSVA, %
% 60
25
50 48.6
20 19.7 40
15

Percentage
Percentage

30 29.3
10 10.6
20
5 10

0 0
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Uttarakhand States' Average Uttarakhand States' Average

Source: MoSPI, 2021-22.
Note: i. States’ average refers to a simple average of the shares of 33 States and UTs; ii. Nominal variables have been used to calc ulate the shares; iii. Uttarakhand's large
industry sector share can be attributed to the implementation of various industrial policies, such as the industrial policy i n 2003, which offered tax benefits and subsidies;
implementation of the Special Integrated Industrial Development Policy (SIIDP) for the hill regions in 2008, the MSME Policy in 2015, and the Start-up Policy in 2018, has led to
substantial growth in capital investments [Source - An Analytical Review of Industrialization in Uttarakhand,2022].
27
Uttarakhand’s share of the Services sector in its total GSVA has increased in the last
decade but it lags behind the average share of all States as of 2021-22

Share of Services Sector in Total GSVA, %

60

50 51.0

40 40.8
Percentage

30

20

10

0
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Uttarakhand States' Average

Source: MoSPI, 2021-22.
Note: i. States’ average refers to a simple average of the shares of 33 States and UTs; ii. Nominal
variables have been used to calculate the shares; iii. Services include Transport, Storage &
Communications, Trade, Hotels and Restaurants, Real Estate, Banking and Financial Services, Public
Administration and some other miscellaneous services. 28
Over the past 10 years, Manufacturing has held the largest share, accounting for about
38 percent of the total GSVA

Shares of all the sectors in GSVA (decadal average of shares b/w 2012-13 and
2021-22), %
50

40 37.7
Percentage

30

20
13.4
10.5
10 8.2 6.9 6.6 5.2 4.0 3.2 2.8 1.5
0
Manufacturing Trade,Hotels and Agriculture and Construction Transport Other Services Real Public Electricity,Gas Banking and Mining &
Restaurants Allied Activities Storage and Estate,Ownership Administration and Water supply Insurance Quarrying
Communication of Dwellings and
Business Services

Source: MoSPI, 2021-22.

Note: i. Nominal variables have been used to calculate the shares; ii. The growth in Uttarakhand’s Manufacturing sector share can be explained by the State’s
implementation of various industrial policies, such as the industrial policy in 2003, which offered tax benefits and subsidies; implementation of the Special
Integrated Industrial Development Policy (SIIDP) for the hill regions in 2008, the MSME Policy in 2015, and the Start-up Policy in 2018 have led to substantial
growth in capital investments. Moreover, Non-polluting manufacturing industries were provided incentives like Special Capital Investment Subsidy, Special
Interest Subsidy, Stamp Duty Exemption on Purchase/Lease of Land, Infrastructure Development Subsidy, and Reimbursement of VA T [Source - Uttarakhand 29
Economic Survey 2020-21 (Volume-II); An Analytical Review of Industrialization in Uttarakhand, 2022].
 Out of all the major sectors, Other Services sector and Public Administration has
shown the highest growth in GSVA over the last decade

Growth rate of all the sectors (decadal average of growth rates b/w 2012-13 and
2021-22), %
10 9.2
9
7.9 7.7
8
6.9
7 6.2 6.1 5.9 5.9
Percentage

6 5.1
5
4 3.6
3
2 1.5
1
0
Other Services Public Banking and Trade,Hotels and Electricity,Gas Transport Storage Real Construction Manufacturing Mining & Agriculture and
Administration Insurance Restaurants and Water supply and Estate,Ownership Quarrying Allied Activities
Communication of Dwellings and
Business Services

Source: MoSPI, 2021-22.

Note: i. Real variables have been used to calculate the shares; ii. Agriculture refers to Agriculture and its allied activities such as fishing,
animal husbandry, crops etc.; iii. Industry includes Mining & Quarrying, Manufacturing, Construction, and Supply of Electricity & Water;
iv. Services include Transport, Storage & Communications, Trade, Hotels and Restaurants, Real Estate, Banking and Financial Services,
Public Administration and some other miscellaneous services. 30
Table 2C: Uttarakhand’s Sectoral Growth Rates and Decadal
Averages

Decadal Average of
Decadal Average of
Latest Annual Growth Growth rates for India
Sector Growth rates (b/w
Rate (2019-20) (b/w 2010-11 and 2019-
2010-11 and 2019-20)
20)
Agriculture 4.5% 1.8% 4.4%
Industry -1.0% 7.0% 5.3%
Manufacturing -1.3% 6.8% 6.0%
Services 5.6% 8.2% 7.7%
GSVA 2.1% 6.9% 6.4%
GSDP 2.0% 7.1% 6.6%
Source: MoSPI as of August 2023. Back series with 2011-12 base has been taken from EPWRF.
Note: i. Real variables have been used to calculate the growth rate; ii. Agriculture refers to Agriculture and its allied activities such as
fishing, animal husbandry, crops etc.; iii. Industry includes Mining & Quarrying, Manufacturing, Construction, and Supply of Electricity
& Water; iv. Services includes Transport, Storage & Communications, Trade, Hotels and Restaurants, Real Estate, Banking and Financial
Services, Public Administration and some other miscellaneous services. 31
Table 2D: Uttarakhand’s Sectoral Growth Rates and Decadal Averages of Growth Rates

Decadal Average of
Latest Annual Average of Growth Decadal Average of
Growth rates (b/w
Sector Growth Rate rates (b/w 2018-19 Growth rate for India
2013-14 and 2022-
(2022-23) and 2022-23) (b/w 2013-14 and 2022-23)
23)

Agriculture -3.0% 1.2% 0.7% 4.1%

Industry 7.9% 1.1% 4.2% 5.2%

Manufacturing 6.0% -0.04% 3.4% 5.5%

Services 9.6% 4.4% 7.3% 6.6%
GSVA 7.7% 2.4% 5.0% 5.7%

GSDP 7.6% 2.2% 5.0% 5.8%

Source: MoSPI as of March 2024. Back series with 2011-12 base has been taken from EPWRF.
Note: i. India’s GVA has been calculated taking a simple sum of the three sectors; ii. Real variables have been used to calculate th e growth rate; iii. Sectoral growth rates are
calculated based on GSVA numbers; iv. Agriculture refers to Agriculture and its allied activities such as fishing, animal husbandry, crops etc.; v. Industry includ es Mining &
Quarrying, Manufacturing, Construction, and Supply of Electricity & Water; vi. Services includes Transport, Storage & Communications, Trade, Hotels and Restaurants, Real Estate,
Banking and Financial Services, Public Administration and some other miscellaneous services. 32
 Uttarakhand’s Credit-Deposit Ratio is significantly lower than the all-India estimate with an over 35
percent point difference as of 2021. The Credit to GSDP Ratio is also very low with an over 30 percent
point difference with the all-India figure as of 2021
Indicators Most Recent Value Year Decadal Change (b/w 2011-12 & 2020-21) India
Credit - Deposit Ratio (%) 35.3% 2020-21 -0.3% points 71.7%
Credit - GSDP Ratio (%) 25.6% 2020-21 +8.2% points 55.9%

Credit-Deposit Ratio (%) Bank-Credit to GSDP Ratio (%)

100 100
71.7
80 80
Percentage

Percentage
60 60 55.9
35.3
40 40 25.6
20 20

0 0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Basic Statistical Returns (BSR) of Scheduled Commercial Banks, RBI (2020-21). Source: i. Bank-Credit: Basic Statistical Returns (BSR) of Scheduled Commercial Banks,
Note: India’s numbers have been taken directly from the source. RBI (2020-21); ii. GSDP: MOSPI (2020-21). Back series with 2011-12 base has been taken
from EPWRF.
Note: The Credit variable used is Credit Outstanding as per Sanction.
Uttarakhand holds an average 1.9 percent share of Total Domestic Tourist
Visits between 2013 - 2019

Domestic Tourist Visits to each State (as % of total Domestic Tourist Visits, average b/w
2013-2019)
25
22.1
20
16.3
Percentage

15
9.5 9.2
10
7.0
5.5 5.2 1.9
5 4.2
2.6 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8
0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Chandigarh
Uttarakhand

Mizoram
Assam

Daman & Diu

Punjab

Kerala

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Meghalaya
Delhi
Tamil Nadu

Himachal Pradesh
Chhattisgarh

Manipur
Gujarat
Maharashtra

West Bengal

Leh Ladakh
Goa

Sikkim
Haryana

Lakshdweep
Odisha

A&N Island

Nagaland
Jharkhand
Rajasthan

Bihar

Jammu & Kashmir

Puducherry
Karnataka

Telangana

Tripura
Andhra Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh
Source: Data on tourist visits have been compiled from multiple issues of India Tourism Statistics published by the Ministry of Tourism
34
(2013 – 2019).
Uttarakhand holds an average 0.5 percent share of total Foreign Tourist Visits between
2013 - 2019

Foreign Tourist Visits to each State (as % of total Foreign Tourist Visits, average b/w 2013 -2019)
25
20.1
20 18.9
Percentage

15 13.0
10.2
10
6.2 6.0
5 4.1 3.8 0.5
2.7 2.5 2.3
1.7 1.4 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8
0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
Himachal Pradesh

Meghalaya
Punjab

Chhattisgarh
Assam

Mizoram
West Bengal

Chandigarh

Manipur
Uttarakhand

Daman & Diu

Madhya Pradesh

Lakshdweep
Kerala
Delhi
Uttar Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir

Odisha
Tamil Nadu

Gujarat
Rajasthan

Goa

Andhra Pradesh

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Sikkim
Haryana

Leh Ladakh
Maharashtra

Karnataka

Arunachal Pradesh
Bihar

Tripura

A&N Island

Nagaland
Jharkhand
Telangana

Puducherry
Source: Data on tourist visits have been compiled from multiple issues of India Tourism Statistics published by the Ministry of Tourism (2013 –
2019) 35
 Domestic and Foreign Tourist Visits over the years in Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand's share of Domestic Uttarakhand's share of Foreign Tourist

Tourist Visits in total, % Visits in total, %
2.5 1.0
2.1 2.1 0.9
2.0 1.9 1.9 0.8
1.7 1.7
1.6 0.7
Percentage

Percentage
1.5 0.6 0.52
0.49 0.47 0.50 0.48
0.5 0.46 0.45
1.0 0.4
0.3
0.5 0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Source: Data on tourist visits have been compiled from multiple issues of India Tourism Statistics published by the Ministry of Tourism
(2013 – 2019) 36
Uttarakhand ’s CHIPS (Connect, Harness, Innovate, Protect, and Sustain) score is among
bottom twelve in India

State's CHIPS Score

70
60
50
39.1 37.6
40
Score

30
20
10
0

Himachal Pradesh
Punjab

Assam
Meghalaya

Chhattisgarh
Mizoram
Chandigarh

Manipur

West Bengal
Uttarakhand

Madhya Pradesh
Delhi

Kerala

Andaman & Nicobar

Jammu & Kashmir

Uttar Pradesh
All India

Odisha
Gujarat

Tamil Nadu

Goa
Sikkim

Andhra Pradesh

Rajasthan
Haryana

Dadra & Nagar Haveli

Maharashtra

Arunachal Pradesh
Bihar
Tripura
Karnataka

Nagaland

Jharkhand
Telangana

Source: The State of India’s Digital Economy Report 2024 by Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER).
Note: 50 indicators have been used to measure the CHIPS score.
37
4. Socio-Economic Indicators
(Education and Health)
• School Education data covers the period 2012-13 to 2016-17;

• Higher Education data covers the period 2012 to 2021;

• Health data covers the period 2011 – 2020 (SRS) and 1992-93 to 2019-21 (NFHS)

38
Table 3A: Education Indicators for Uttarakhand

Indicator Most Recent Value India Value Decadal Change (% points) Source

Literacy Rate 78.8% (2011) 73.0% +7.2% points (b/w 2001 & 2011) Census of India
Drop-Out Rates (Class X) 14.5% (2016-17) 35.2% -1.9% points (b/w 2013-14 & 2016-17 ) U-DISE

Drop-Out Rates (Class VIII-X) 9.1% (2016-17) 21.1% -0.6% points (b/w 2014-15 & 2016-17 ) U-DISE

Students passing Board

84.7% (2016-17) 86.1% +4.1% points (b/w 2012-13 & 2016-17) U-DISE
Examinations (Class X)
Student passing Board
82.0% (2016-17) 87.3% +4.6% points (b/w 2012-13 & 2016-17 ) U-DISE
Examinations (Class XII)
Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher
75.8% (2015-16) 56.2% +9.2 points (b/w 2012-13 & 2015-16) U-DISE
Secondary)
Gross Enrolment Ratio (Higher
45.7% (2021) 27.3% +14.6% points (b/w 2012 & 2021) AISHE
Education)
Gender Parity Index (Higher
1.14 (2021) 1.05 +0.07 points (b/w 2012 & 2021) AISHE
Education)
Colleges per 100,000
40 (2021) 31 +8.3 points (b/w 2012 & 2021) AISHE
population
Note: i. Indicators for Higher Education are based on the population of the age group 18-23 years; ii. India number has been taken
directly from the source; iii. Decadal changes are across a period of 10 years unless data is available for a lesser period; iv. All years
39
represent corresponding survey years.
Table 3B: Health Indicators for Uttarakhand
Indicator Most Recent Value India Value Decadal Change (% points) Source

24 deaths per 1000 28 deaths per 1000 36 deaths per 1000 live births Sample Registration
Infant Mortality Rate
live births (2020) live births (2011) System

1.9 children per 2 children per 2.6 children per woman

Total Fertility Rate NFHS
woman (2019-21) woman (2005-06)
Sample Registration
Life Expectancy 70.3 years (2020) 70.0 years -1.1 years (from 2014)
System
Children Fully
80.8% (2019-21) 76.4% +20.8% points NFHS
Immunized
Households with Access
to Improved Drinking 95.5% (2019-21) 95.9% +8.1% points NFHS
Water Source
Households with Access
99.4% (2019-21) 96.5% +19.4% points NFHS
to Electricity

Households with Access

77.9% (2019-21) 69.3% +33.5% points NFHS
to Sanitation Facilities

Note: i. Decadal change for NFHS variables taken from NFHS-V (2019-21) to NFHS-III (2005-06); ii. The number for India has been taken directly
from the source; iii. All years represent corresponding survey years. 40
Table 3C: Other Socio-Economic Indicators for Uttarakhand
Indicator Most Recent Value India Value Decadal Change Source
Pupil-Teacher Ratio:
16 (2016-17) 25 -11 points (b/w 2006-07 & 2016-17) U-DISE
Elementary
Pupil-Teacher Ratio: Higher
20 (2016-17) 31 -6 points (b/w 2012-13 & 2016-17) U-DISE
Secondary
Pupil-Teacher Ratio: Higher
23 (2018-19) 24 -5 points (b/w 2008-09 & 2018-19) AISHE
Education

Underweight Children 21.0 % (2019-21) 32.1% -17.0 % points (b/w 2005-06 and 2019-21) NFHS

Stunting Among Children 27.0 % (2019-21) 35.5% -17.4 % points (b/w 2005-06 and 2019-21) NFHS

Anaemia Among Children 58.8 % (2019-21) 67.1% -2.6 % points (b/w 2005-06 and 2019-21) NFHS

Anaemia Among Women 42.6 % (2019-21) 57.0% -12.6 % points (b/w 2005-06 and 2019-21) NFHS

Under 5 Mortality Rate 45.6 deaths per 1000 live births 41.9 deaths per 1000 live births -11.2 deaths per 1000 live births (b/w 2005-06 and 2019-21) NFHS

Infant Mortality Rate 39.1 deaths per 1000 live births 35.2 deaths per 1000 live births -2.8 deaths per 1000 live births (b/w 2005-06 and 2019-21) NFHS

Multidimensional Poverty
0.04 (2019-21) 0.07 -0.04 points (b/w 2015-16 & 2019-21) NFHS
Index (MPI)
Sustainable Development
79 (2023-24) 71 +19 points (b/w 2018-19 & 2023-24) NITI Aayog
Goals (SDG) Index

Note: i. Indicators for Higher Education are based on the population of the age group 18-23 years; ii. India number has been taken directly from the source; iii. Decadal change for
NFHS variables taken from NFHS-III (2005-06) to NFHS-V (2019-21); iv. Infant Mortality Rate in Table 3B was defined using the SRS data and the Infant Mortality Rate defined here is
based on the NFHS data; v. All years represent corresponding survey years.
Uttarakhand’s Literacy Rate has increased rapidly over the decades and is above the
national estimate as of 2011

Literacy Rate (%)

100

78.8
80
Percentage

60 73.0

40

20

0
1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2011
Uttarakhand India

Source: Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs (1951 – 2011).
Note: i. India number has been taken directly from the source; ii. Census Literacy Rate relates to population aged
seven years and above from 1981; iii. Back-casted numbers before Uttarakhand’s creation in 2000 are taken directly
from the source. 42
 Uttarakhand’s School Drop-Out Rates for Class X and Secondary (Class VIII-X) Level
are lower than the national figures over the period 2013-14 to 2016-17

School Drop-Out Rates (Class X) School Drop-Out Rates (Class VIII-X)

40 40
35.2
30 30
Percentage

Percentage
20 20 21.1

14.5
10 10 9.1

0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Unified District Information System for Education (U-DISE), 2015-16.

Note: i. Drop-Out Rate is defined as the proportion of pupils from a cohort enrolled in a given stage in a school year who are no longer enrolled
in the following school year; ii. India number has been taken directly from the source. 43
The students who pass the Secondary (Class X) Level Examinations are at 84.7 percent in Uttarakhand which is below
the national average in 2016-17. The students who pass the Higher Secondary (Class XII) Level Examinations are at 82.0
percent which is also below the national average in 2016-17

Percentage of Students Passing Class X Percentage of Students Passing Class XII

Board Examinations Board Examinations (Science Stream)
100 100

95 95
86.1
90 90 87.3
Percentage

Percentage
85 85

80 84.7 80 82.0
75 75

70 70
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Unified District Information System for Education (U-DISE), 2015-16.

Note: i. Percentages are a simple average of the pass percentages for boys and girls as reported separately; ii. India number has been taken directly
from the source; iii. Pass percentages for Higher Secondary Level are reported separately by Stream (Science, Arts, Humanities, Vocational, Others).
44
 Uttarakhand’s Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) at the Higher Secondary Level and the Higher Education (age
group 18-23) level was above the all-India figure over their respective periods

GER at the Higher Secondary Level GER for Higher Education (age group 18-23
100 years)
75.8 50 45.7
80
40
Percentage

60

Percentage
56.2 30
40
20 27.3
20 10

0 0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: i. Unified District Information System for Education (U-DISE), 2015-16; ii. All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), 2020-21.
Note: i. GER is the total enrolment in a particular stage of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the official age-group of the
population which corresponds to the given stage of education in a given year. It is the general level of participation per stage of education; ii. The
Higher Education GER represents share of enrollees to the total population in the age group 18-23 years; iii. India number has been taken directly from
the source.
In terms of Gender Parity Index (the share of girls to boys enrolled at Higher Education institutions in the age group
18-23 years), Uttarakhand is above or at the national benchmark across the last decade. The State has higher average
college density per 100,000 people in the age-group 18-23 years compared to the national average

Gender Parity Index in the age group 18-23 Number of Colleges per 100,000 in the
years population age group 18-23 years
1.2 1.14 50

1.1 40.0
40

Number of Colleges
1.0 1.05
30 31.0
0.9
Ratio

0.8 20
0.7
10
0.6
0.5 0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), 2020-21

Note: The number for India has been taken directly from the source.
 Uttarakhand has seen a decline in Infant Mortality and Total Fertility Rate over their
respective decades and is in a better position than their national benchmarks as of 2021

Infant Mortality Rate Total Fertility Rate

100 4.0
3.5
80
3.0

Children per Woman

Per 1000 Live Births

60 2.5 2.0
2.0
40 1.5 1.9
28.0 1.0
24.0
20
0.5
0 0.0
2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Sample Registration System (SRS) Bulletin, Ministry of Home Affairs, Source: National Family Health Survey (II - V).
2020. Note: i. India Number has been taken directly from the source; ii. Back-casted
Note: India Number has been taken directly from the source numbers before Uttarakhand’s creation in 2000 are taken directly from 47 the
source.
Life expectancy in Uttarakhand is slightly higher than an average Indian. For children (12-23 months) Fully
Immunized with all basic vaccinations, Uttarakhand is placed higher than the national average as of 2021

Life Expectancy at Birth (years) Children Fully Immunized (%)

75 100

70.6 80.8
70 80
70.0
76.4
Person Years

Percentage
65 60
57.6
60 40

55 20

50 0
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: Sample Registration System Bulletin, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2020. Source: National Family Health Survey (III – V).
Note: India number has been taken directly from the source. Note: i. India number has been taken directly from the source; ii. Back-casted
numbers before Uttarakhand’s creation in 2000 are taken directly from the 48 source.
 Uttarakhand has improved on “quality of life” indicators across the last two decades. Household access to
drinking water, electricity and sanitation facilities are at par or above the national benchmark, as of 2021

Household Access to Drinking Household Access to electricity Household Access to

Water (%) (%) 99.4 Sanitation Facilities (%)
95.9
100 100 100
77.9
80 80 96.5 80
95.5
Percentage

60 60 60

40 40 40 69.3

20 20 20

0 0 0
1991 2001 2011 2021 1991 2001 2011 2021 1991 2001 2011 2021
Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India Uttarakhand India

Source: National Family Health Survey (II – V).

Note: i. India number has been taken directly from the source; ii. Drinking water and sanitation refers to improved sources and facilities respectively as
defined in NFHS; iii. Back-casted numbers before Uttarakhand’s creation in 2000 are taken directly from the source.
49
 5. Fiscal Indicators

• Fiscal Data covers the fiscal period 1990-91 - 2022-23

• Benchmark includes all 29 States (all Union Territories are excluded)

50
Table 4A: Deficits, Revenue, Expenditure, Debt, Subsidies and Off-Budget Borrowings for Uttarakhand
Most Recent Decadal Change
States’ Median States’ Median States’ Mean (All
Indicators Value (% of For Year (b/w 2013-14 & 2022-
(All States) (Larger States) States and UTs)
GSDP) 23)
Fiscal Deficit, % of GSDP 2.7 % 2022-23 + 0.9 % points 3.8 % 3.6% 3.4 %

Primary Deficit, % of GSDP 0.7 % 2022-23 + 0.3 % points 1.9 % 1.6% 1.7 %

Revenue Surplus (+)/Deficit (-), %

+ 0.8 % 2022-23 + 0.1 % points 0.3 % -0.4% - 0.5 %
of GSDP

Total Revenue Receipts, % of GSDP 17.2 % 2022-23 + 5.6 % points 19.9 % 15.3% 14.4 %

Own Tax Revenue, % of GSDP 5.6 % 2022-23 + 0.7 % points 6.3 % 6.4% 6.6 %

Own Non Tax Revenue, % of GSDP 1.6 % 2022-23 + 0.8 % points 1.2 % 1.1% 1.0 %

Total Expenditure, % of GSDP 19.9 % 2022-23 + 6.3 % points 24.0 % 19.3% 17.8 %

Revenue Expenditure, % of GSDP 16.4 % 2022-23 + 5.5 % points 18.8 % 16.9 % 14.8 %

Capital Expenditure, % of GSDP 3.5 % 2022-23 + 0.8 % points 4.0 % 3.4% 3.0 %

Capital Expenditure, % of Total

17.6% 2022-23 - 2.2 % points 17.6 % 16.1% 16.7 %
Exp

Total Public Debt, % of GSDP 26.5 % 2022-23 + 6.1 % points 32.1 % 30.7% 27.5 %

Contingent Liabilities, % of GSDP 0.1 % 2021-22 - 1.1 % points 1.6 % 1.7% 3.8 %

Source: Data is taken from RBI State Finances Report, as of December 2023.
Note: i. Median of All States includes all 29 States (all Union Territories are excluded); ii. Median of 22 States excludes the Nort h Eastern States, except Assam; iii. All
States/UTs shows the sum of 29 States, Delhi and Puducherry, expressed as a % of national gross domestic product. 51
 Table 4B: Deficits, Revenue, Expenditure, Debt, Subsidies and Off-Budget Borrowings for Uttarakhand
Most Recent Value Decadal Change (b/w States’ Median States’ Median All States/UT's
Indicators For Year
(% of GSDP) 2013-14 & 2022-23) (All States) (Larger States) (% of National GDP)

Committed Expenditure, % of GSDP 10.0% 2022-23 +2.3% points 9.2% 8.1% 6.9%
Committed Expenditure, % of Total
50.3% 2022-23 -6.3% points 42.4% 40.9% 38.6%
Expenditure
+0.01% points
Subsidies, % of GSDP 0.1% 2022-23 1.0% 1.1% 1.5%
(b/w 2018-19 & 2022-23)
-0.03% points
Subsidies, % of Total Expenditure 0.4% 2022-23 3.7% 5.8% 8.2%
(b/w 2018-19 & 2022-23)

Off-Budget Borrowings, % of GSDP - 2022-23 - 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Per Capita Social Expenditure Rs. 24,586 2022-23 +Rs. 15,597 Rs. 18,949 Rs. 2,606 Rs. 6,514
Per Capita Health Expenditure Rs. 4,137 2022-23 +Rs.3,133 Rs. 17,385 Rs. 2,494 Rs. 5,669
Per Capita Education Expenditure Rs. 9,098 2022-23 +Rs. 4,904 Rs. 17,585 Rs. 2,421 Rs. 5,700
Social Expenditure, % of Total
47.3% 2022-23 +0.9% points 43.9% 45.6% 45.3%
Expenditure
Health Expenditure, % of Total
8.0% 2022-23 +2.8% points 6.3% 6.3% 6.2%
Expenditure
Education Expenditure, % of Total
17.5% 2022-23 -4.1% points 14.6% 14.8% 14.7%
Expenditure
Buoyancy for Revenue Expenditure
2.0% 2022-23 +0.8% points 1.8% 1.7% 1.5%
with GSDP - ratio
Source: i. Subsidies, Wage and Salaries, Pension, Social sector expenditure, Medical and Public Health, Family Welfare, Education expenditure, Total Expenditure data are from the RBI’s State Finances Reports, as of
December 2023; ii. Off-Budget Borrowing data is from Ministry of Expenditure (2021-22, 2022-23); iii. Data for Population and GSDP are taken from MoSPI.
Note: i. Median of All States includes all 29 States (all Union Territories are excluded); ii. Median of 22 States excludes the North Eastern States, except Assam; iii. All States/UTs shows the sum of 29 States, Delhi and
Puducherry, expressed as a % of national gross domestic product; iv. Committed Expenditure is calculated as the sum of Wage, Salaries, and Pension; v. Health Expenditure is calculated as the sum of Medical and Public
Health, Family Welfare; vi. Social, Health, and Education Expenditures are calculated as per capita values by dividing the respective expenditure by the population; vii. Total Expenditure is calculated as the sum of Revenue
52
Expenditure (RevEx), Capital Outlay, and Loans and Advances; viii. The Buoyancy of Revenue Expenditure is calculated as the ratio between the year-on-year growth rate of Revenue Expenditure and that of GSDP.
 In 2022-23, Uttarakhand ran a Fiscal Deficit and Primary Deficit of 2.7 and 0.7 percent of
its GSDP respectively, both lower than a median State

Fiscal Deficit, % of GSDP Primary Deficit, % of GSDP

10 6
4.6
8 7.4
4 3.6

Percent of GSDP
Percent of GSDP

6 1.9
3.8
2
4 0.7
0
2
2.7
0 -2

2021-22
2010-11

2016-17

2019-20
2020-21
2009-10

2018-19

2022-23
2003-04

2007-08

2014-15
2001-02

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12

2015-16
2012-13
2016-17
2010-11

2018-19

2021-22
2014-15

2019-20

2022-23
2007-08
2005-06

2009-10

2020-21
2002-03
2001-02

2003-04

2006-07

2008-09
2004-05

2017-18
2015-16
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14

Uttarakhand States' Median Uttarakhand States' Median

Source: i. Fiscal Deficit (FD) is from RBI State Finances Report (SFR, 2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Primary Deficit (PD) is calculated (Fiscal Deficit – Interest Payments). Interest Payments is sourced from RBI SFR; ii. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated
for each State, and its median across 29 States has been shown (all Union Territories are excluded); iii. The significant fiscal and primary deficit in 2004-05 could result from the
highest Total Expenditure in last two decades; iv. The fiscal and primary deficit improved after 2004-05 as a consequence of the enactment of the State FRBM Act in October 2005.
[Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011]. 5
3
Uttarakhand ran a Revenue Surplus 0.8 percent of its GSDP in 2022-23, about 0.5
percentage points higher than a median State in the same year

Revenue Surplus (+)/Deficit (-), % of GSDP

4

2.1 0.8
2
Percent of GSDP

0 0.3

-2

-4 -3.3

2016-17

2022-23
2007-08

2021-22
2010-11

2018-19

2019-20
2014-15
2005-06

2009-10
2002-03

2020-21
2003-04
2001-02

2006-07

2017-18
2008-09
2004-05

2013-14
2012-13

2015-16
2011-12
Uttarakhand States' Median
Source: i. Revenue Deficit is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 29 States has been shown (all Union Territories are
excluded); ii. The significant revenue deficit in 2004-05 could result from the highest Total Expenditure in the last two decades; iii. The revenue deficit
continued to be in surplus during the years from 2005-06 to 2008-09 on the back of containment of revenue expenditure and increase in State’s share in
central taxes consequent to the Twelfth Finance Commission award [Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011].
54
In 2022-23, Uttarakhand’s Total Revenue Receipts (Own Tax, Own Non-Tax, and shared by the
Centre) were lower than what a median State collected, at about 17.2 percent of its GSDP

Revenue Receipts, % of GSDP

25
19.9
20
Percent of GSDP

15
17.2
10

2016-17

2022-23
2007-08

2010-11

2018-19

2021-22
2019-20
2014-15
2005-06
2002-03

2009-10

2020-21
2003-04

2006-07
2001-02

2017-18
2004-05

2008-09

2013-14

2015-16
2011-12

2012-13
Uttarakhand States' Median
Source: i. Revenue Receipts from RBI State Finances Report (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 29 States has been shown (all
Union Territories are excluded). 55
 Uttarakhand’s Own tax Revenue, Own Non-Tax Revenue, and Transfers from the Centre, at 5.6, 1.6,
and 10 percent of its GSDP respectively. Transfers from the Centre are at par with a median State,
and account for 58 percent of the State’s total revenue

State's Own Tax Revenue, % State's Own Non-Tax Transfers from Centre, % of
of GSDP Revenue, % of GSDP 12 GSDP 10.0
8 3
7 6.3 10
Percent of GSDP

6 1.6 8 10.0
5 2
5.6 6
4
3 1 4
2 1.2 2
1
0 0 0

2021-22
2019-20
2005-06
2007-08
2009-10
2003-04
2001-02

2015-16
2017-18
2013-14
2011-12
2021-22
2019-20
2005-06

2009-10
2007-08
2003-04
2001-02

2021-22
2017-18
2015-16

2019-20
2013-14

2007-08
2011-12

2009-10
2001-02
2003-04
2005-06

2013-14

2017-18
2011-12

2015-16
Uttarakhand States' Median Uttarakhand States' Median Uttarakhand States' Median

Source: i. Own-Tax Revenue, Own Non-Tax Revenue, and Transfers from the Centre from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 29 States has been shown (all Union Territories are
excluded); ii. Transfers from the Centre include both Tax and Non-Tax transfers.
56
In 2022-23, Uttarakhand’s Expenditure at 19.9 percent of its GSDP was 4.1 percentage
points lower than a median State

Total Expenditure, % of GSDP 24.0

25
21.7

20
Percent of GSDP

19.9

15

10

2016-17

2018-19
2010-11

2021-22
2014-15

2019-20

2022-23
2007-08
2005-06

2009-10
2002-03

2020-21
2003-04

2006-07
2001-02

2008-09
2004-05

2017-18
2015-16
2012-13

2013-14
2011-12
Uttarakhand States' Median
Source: i. Total Expenditure is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as Revenue Expenditure (RevEx) plus Capital expenditure (CapEx); ii. The variable as a
percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 29 States has been shown (all Union Territories are
excluded); iii. The spike in Total Expenditure in 2004-05 was influenced by a sharp increase in interest payments due to higher
payments on account of market loans and withdrawal of high cost NSSF borrowings [Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional 57
Papers, vol 32, 2011].
 Uttarakhand’s Revenue Expenditure at 16.4 percent of its GSDP was lower than a median
State, and at 82.4 percent of its Total Expenditure was at par with a median State in 2022-23

RevEx, % of GSDP RevEx, % of Total Exp.

18.8
20 100

Percent of Total Expenditure

90 82.4
Percent of GSDP

15
80
16.4
82.4
70
10
10.6
60

5 50

2016-17
2010-11

2014-15

2018-19

2021-22
2019-20

2022-23
2005-06

2007-08

2009-10

2020-21
2003-04
2010-11

2021-22

2001-02
2019-20

2022-23
2016-17

2002-03

2008-09
2006-07
2020-21
2007-08

2004-05
2009-10
2003-04

2018-19

2017-18
2014-15
2001-02

2015-16
2012-13
2013-14
2002-03

2005-06

2011-12
2006-07

2017-18
2013-14
2011-12
2004-05

2008-09

2015-16
2012-13

Uttarakhand States' Median Uttarakhand States' Median

Source: i. RevEx is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as RevEx + CapEx; ii. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 29
States has been shown (all Union Territories are excluded).

58
 In 2022-23, Uttarakhand’s CapEx at 3.5 percent of its GSDP, was about 0.5 percentage points
lower than what a median State spent on CapEx (as percent of the GSDP)

CapEx, % of GSDP CapEx, % of Total Exp.

6
5.2 30

Percent of Total Expenditure

5 4.0
25 17.6
Percent of GSDP

4 20
3 15
3.5
2 10 17.6

1 5

- -

2016-17

2018-19
2010-11

2014-15

2019-20

2021-22
2022-23
2005-06

2007-08

2009-10

2020-21
2002-03
2003-04

2006-07
2001-02

2004-05

2008-09

2017-18
2012-13

2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2021-22
2019-20
2010-11

2016-17

2020-21
2007-08

2014-15

2022-23
2001-02

2009-10
2003-04

2018-19
2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2004-05

2011-12
2008-09

2015-16
2012-13

Uttarakhand States' Median Uttarakhand States' Median

Source: i. CapEx is calculated as Capital Outlay + Loans and Advances given by the State government and the data for both is taken from RBI SFR (2022-23);
ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as RevEx + CapEx; ii. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 29
States has been shown (all Union Territories are excluded); iii. The spike in capital expenditure in 2005-06 was due to a very high development expenditure
[Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011]. 59
Uttarakhand has seen a consistent rise in its Public Debt since 2014 but as of 2022-23 public debt at 26.5 percent
of its GSDP was lower than that of a median State by 5.6 percentage points. Its Contingent Liabilities have
declined consistently and as of 2021-22 these were 0.1 percent of its GSDP

Total Public Debt, % of GSDP Contingent Liabilities, % of GSDP

50 5

40 32.1 4
Percent of GSDP

Percent of GSDP
30 3
26.5
20 2
1.6
10 20.3 1
0.1
- -

2016-17

2019-20
2010-11

2021-22
2007-08

2009-10

2018-19
2014-15

2020-21
2006-07

2017-18
2013-14
2011-12
2008-09

2015-16
2012-13
2021-22
2010-11

2016-17

2019-20
2020-21
2014-15
2009-10

2022-23
2003-04

2018-19
2007-08
2001-02

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12

2015-16
2012-13

Uttarakhand States' Median Uttarakhand States' Median

Source: i. Public Debt and State-wise contingent liabilities data has been taken from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 29 States has been shown (all Union Territories are excluded); ii. The data for
Contingent Liabilities is available only from 2006-07 for Uttarakhand; iii. During 2014-15 to 2018-19, a major portion (ranging between 60.9 per cent and 80.9 per cent) of public debt
receipt was being utilised for repayment of earlier borrowed funds and payment of interest [Source – CAG report, 2020]. 60
 Debt Sustainability Assessment

• Extrapolations of the debt-to-GSDP ratio are used as a way of thinking about debt sustainability, using
𝑏 𝑟 −𝑔
the equation: ∆ 𝑏𝑡 = 𝑡−11+𝑔𝑡 𝑡 + 𝑝𝑑𝑡 *
𝑡

• A baseline scenario assumes real GDP growth, the real effective interest rate and primary deficit will
be at the same levels for the next five years as their respective averages from 2012-13 to 2021-22.
• Second scenario assumes faster GDP growth to the tune of half a standard deviation over the average
growth between 2012-13 to 2021-22.
• Third scenario assumes a favorable change of half a standard deviation to the primary deficit over the
average deficit between 2012-13 to 2021-22.
• Fourth scenario assumes baseline plus outstanding contingent liabilities in 2021-22 will be absorbed (by
20 percent) each year in the next five years.
• A fifth scenario, by combining scenarios two and three.

Note: i. bt is the debt-to-GSDP ratio, pdt is the primary-deficit-to-GSDP ratio (deficit net of interest payment), gt is growth of real GSDP, and rt is the
real effective interest rate on public debt; all in year t; ii. ∆ 𝒃𝒕 is the change in debt-to-GSDP ratio between t and t-1; iii. The exercise is based on the
assumption that g, r, and pd are exogenous, that is, they are not impacted by the level of debt.
Uttarakhand Debt Evolution (2012-13 to 2021-22)
Averages and standard deviations of key parameters
Ten-year average and std. Five-year average and std.
deviations (2012-13 to 2021-22) deviations (2017-18 to 2021-22)
Mean Std dev Mean Std dev
Nominal GDP growth (γ) 9.1 5.2 7.0 6.6
Deflator growth (π) 3.5 2.1 3.9 2.0
Real GDP growth (g) 5.4 4.7 3.0 5.7
Effective interest rate (e) 7.3 2.7 6.1 3.5
Real effective interest rate (r) 3.8 3.9 2.2 4.6
Primary deficit (pd) 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.6
Growth-effective interest
1.6 6.3 0.8 9.0
differential (g-ê)
Contingent Liabilities (CL) as of
0.1 - - -
2021-22
Percentage points of CL
0.03 - - -
absorbed each year for 5 years 62
 Different scenarios for conducting debt sustainability assessments
Real Change in Cumulative
Debt level in Real GDP
Primary Effective Debt in change in Debt
Scenarios 2021-22 (bt- growth
Deficit (pd) Interest first year in next five
1) (g)
Rate (r) (2022-23) years
Baseline (Scenario 1): 10-year
29.0 1.1 5.4 3.8 0.60 2.92
averages (2012-13 to 2021-22)
Scenario 2: Higher growth
(increasing growth by half a 29.0 1.1 7.7 3.8 -0.02 -0.08
standard deviation over baseline)
Scenario 3: Lower Primary Deficit
(reducing primary deficit by half a 29.0 0.4 5.4 3.8 -0.02 -0.11
standard deviation over baseline)
Scenario 4: Contingent Liabilities
in 2021-22 are absorbed 20% in 29.0 1.1 5.4 3.8 0.63 3.06
each year
Scenario 5: Lower Primary Deficit
29.0 0.4 7.7 3.8 -0.64 -2.99
and Higher Growth
Note: In Scenario 2, half a standard deviation of 10-year average of real GDP growth rate is added as a positive growth shock. In Scenario 3, half a
standard deviation of 10-year average of primary deficit is removed as a positive fiscal shock. In Scenario 4, 0.03 percentage points of Contingent
63
Liabilities are assumed to be taken on by the government in each fiscal year.
 Uttarakhand’s debt sustainability assessments put the State on a predicted upward trajectory of higher debt
in the next five years under the baseline scenario. Although the outstanding contingent liabilities are not very
high for the State, predicted outcomes in the benign scenarios of higher growth and lower primary deficit are
not optimistic

35 Debt Sustainability Assessment for Uttarakhand

32.1
29.0 31.9
30 28.9
28.9
25 26.0
Percentage

20
Debt, % of GDP
15 S1: 10-year averages
10 S2: Higher growth
S3: Lower primary deficit
5 S4: Contingent Liabilities
S5: Higher growth and lower primary deficit
0

Note: In Scenario 2, half a standard deviation of 10-year average of real GDP growth rate is added as a positive growth shock. In
Scenario 3, half a standard deviation of 10-year average of primary deficit is removed as a positive fiscal shock. In Scenario 4, 0.03
percentage points of Contingent Liabilities are assumed to be taken on by the government in each fiscal year.
64
Uttarakhand: Power Sector
• The State has one distribution utility/company (DISCOMs) – Uttarakhand Power Corporation
Limited (UPCL), a State-operated utility.

• Its average AT&C Losses have declined substantially from 28.4 percent in 2009-10 to 14 percent in
2021-22 (about 4 percentage points lower the National average AT&C losses), owing to improved
billing and collection efficiency.

• Per the Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana (UDAY) scheme’s portal, the State signed up for the
operational and financial turnaround objectives of the scheme. It achieved the financial target of
reducing AT&C Losses below 17 percent.

• The State also achieved all the operational targets it opted for under the UDAY scheme, except
installation of smart meters which was not one of its targets.

Source: PFC Report on Performance of State Power Utilities (2009-10 to 2021-22), UDAY Portal. 65
The average Aggregate Technical & Commercial Loss (AT&C) of UPCL is lower than the
national average, standing at 14.2 percent in 2021-22

Average AT&C Loss (%)

50

40
Percentage

30

20 18.5
14.2
10

Uttarakhand National

Source: PFC Report on Performance of State Power Utilities (2009-10 to 2021-22).

Note: i. Figure shows the average AT&C Loss of UPCL; ii. The National average is across all DISCOMs in the 29
States and 2 Union Territories (Delhi & Puducherry). 66
6. Devolution to Uttarakhand from
Centre in 14 and 15 Finance
th th

Commission (FC)

67
 Tax Devolution Criteria of 14th and 15th FCs to all States
• The Net Proceeds of all taxes1 collected by the Union are shareable with the States, and constitute the divisible pool of
taxes.
• The 14th FC placed the States’ share of tax devolution to 42 percent of the divisible pool, and the 15 th FC adjusted it to 41
percent of the divisible pool due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the Union Territories of Ladakh and
Jammu & Kashmir.
• Below table highlights the tax devolution matrix used by the two FCs, and the corresponding weights for each criteria.

Criteria 14th FC (2015-20) 15th FC (2021-26)

Income Distance 50 45
Area 15 15
Population (1971) 17.5 0
Population (2011)2 10 15
Demographic Performance 0 12.5
Forest Cover 7.5 0
Forest and Ecology 0 10
Tax and fiscal efforts3 0 2.5
Total 100 100

Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.

Note: i. Per Articles 270 and 279, Net Proceeds of taxes is defined as all the taxes, except cess and surcharges, reduced by the cost of collection;
ii. 14th FC used the term “demographic change” which was defined as Population in 2011; iii. The 15th FC reintroduced the “tax and fiscal efforts”
68
criteria. The definitions of all criteria can be referred to from the 15th FC Report.
Grants-in-Aid
➢ There were three types of grants recommended by the 14th FC – revenue deficit grants, grants for local governments, and
grants for disaster management. The 15th FC, in addition to the three, also recommended sector-specific and State-specific
grants.
• Revenue-deficit grants: Post tax devolution, those States which remain in a state of revenue deficit, are allocated this grant
in the magnitude of their deficit (estimated for the award period based on the projected revenues and tax devolution).
• Grants for Local Governments: These are distributed between the rural and urban local bodies (65:35 ratio per the 15th FC).
The States’ shares are calculated with 90 percent weightage given to population and 10 percent to area.
• Grants for Disaster Management: The corpus of the State Disaster Response Fund (envisaged under the Disaster
Management Act, 2005, which covers both natural and man-made disasters) is recommended by the FC per Article 275 (1) of
the Constitution. Under the 14th FC, it was recommended that Centre contribute 90 percent of the SDRF and States provide
the remaining 10 percent. The 15th FC reinstated the previous sharing arrangement, wherein Centre’s contribution to SDRF
for General Category States is 75 percent contribution and it remains 90 percent for the North-Eastern and Himalayan
States.
• Sector-Specific Grants: The 15th FC reinstated recommendations for social sectors like health and education, rural economy
(encouraging agricultural reforms and grants for the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana), administrative and governance
reforms (for judiciary, improved statistics, and incentivizing aspirational districts and blocks).
• State-specific Grants: To help States address special needs and overcome cost disabilities, State-specific grants were
recommended by the 15th Finance Commission. These span six broad areas: a) social needs, b) administrative governance
and related infrastructure, c) conservation and sustainable use of water, drainage and sanitation, d) preserving culture and
historical monuments, e) high-cost physical infrastructure, and f) tourism.

Source: 14th and 15th FC reports.

69
Proposed transfers from the Centre to all States: 15th FC reinstated recommendations on
sector-specific and State-specific grants, which 14th FC had excluded from the Grants-in-
Aid to States, thus increasing the share of grants in the total transfers recommended
from Centre to States to 20 percent

Transfers to States under the 14th FC Transfers to States under the 15th FC

7% 8%
12% 20%
Grants-in-
88% Grants-in- 80% aid 6%
aid
4% 2%
3%
1%
1%

Tax Devolution Local Governments Tax Devolution Local Governments

Revenue Deficit Disaster Management Revenue Deficit Disaster Management
Sector-Specific State-Specific

• Sector-Specific Grants are further divided into three categories:

• Social Sector - health and education
• Rural Economy - agriculture reforms, self reliance, export & sustainability, and PMGSY roads
• Governance and Administrative Reforms - judiciary, statistics, aspirational districts and blocks
70
 Percentage

10
14
18
16

12

0
8

2
4
6
Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
West Bengal
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Karnataka
Odisha
Andhra Pradesh

Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.

Tamil Nadu
Assam
Jharkhand

States’ share of taxes from the Centre.

Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Kerala
Telangana
Jammu & Kashmir
Punjab
Arunachal Pradesh
Haryana
Uttarakhand
1.1

Himachal Pradesh
States' Shares under the 14th FC

Meghalaya
Tripura
Manipur
Nagaland
Mizoram
Goa
Sikkim
10
14
18

12
16

0
8

2
4
6

Uttar Pradesh
Bihar
Madhya Pradesh
West Bengal
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Gujarat
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Assam
consistent at 1.1 percent under both 14 th and 15th FCs

Telangana
Kerala
Punjab
Arunachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
1.1

Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
States' Shares under the 15th FC

Meghalaya
Manipur
Tripura
71

Nagaland
Mizoram
Uttarakhand’s share in Taxes from Centre, as per the FC recommendations, remained

Sikkim
Note: Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir, the 15 th FC did not include it in the

Goa
Uttarakhand had a 0.07 percentage point change in Tax Devolution shares between the
14th and 15th Finance Commission recommendations

Change in Share of Taxes from the Centre between 15th and 14th FC
2.0
(percentage points)
1.5
1.0
Percentage

0.5 0.07
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0

Mizoram
Himachal Pradesh

Sikkim
Jharkhand

Telangana

Kerala
Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand

Goa
West Bengal
Maharashtra

Nagaland

Haryana
Bihar

Karnataka
Punjab
Madhya Pradesh

Manipur

Tamil Nadu
Meghalaya

Tripura

Assam
Uttar Pradesh
Gujarat

Odisha
Rajasthan

Chhattisgarh

Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.

Note: Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir,
the 15th FC did not include it in the States’ share of taxes from the Centre, and it has been excluded from this chart.
72
Grants-in-Aid: Uttarakhand
➢ There were three types of grants recommended by the 14th FC – revenue deficit grants, grants for local governments, and
grants for disaster management. The 15th FC, in addition to the three, also recommended sector-specific and State-specific
grants.
➢ Total: The State’s share in the total grants-in-aid increased by 3.5 percentage points under the 15th FC, compared to the 14th
FC, at 4.2 percent.
• Revenue-deficit grants: Uttarakhand did not receive any revenue-deficit grants under the 14th FC recommendations,
while the 15th FC recommended that the State receive 9.6 percent of these grants, driving its shares in total grants
recommended by the 15th FC up.
• Grants for Local Governments: Its shares in the grants for local governments has remained consistent between the
14th and 15th FC, standing at about 1 percent under the 15th FC recommendations.
• Grants for Disaster Management: Uttarakhand received 4.2 percent of the total grants for disaster management
under the 15th FC recommendations, up from the 14th FC recommendation of 1.9 percent.
• Sector-Specific Grants: Per the 15th FC recommendations, it receives 2.9 percent of the total sectoral grants. It
received 8.4 percent of the grants for maintenance of PMGSY Roads, followed by 2.1 percent each of the health and
education grants as well as grants for statistics. Other sector-specific grants and the State’s shares in each include
grants for judiciary (0.7 percent) and performance incentive grants for agriculture (0.6 percent).
• State-specific Grants: A total of Rs. 1,600 crore was recommended in State-Specific grants, of which, Rs. 950 crore was
directed towards the Jamrani dam multipurpose project for drinking water and sanitation. The remaining State-
specific grants were distributed among Song dam drinking water project for Dehradun (Rs. 500 crore), sanitation,
waste disposal and drainage in Pauri Garhwal (Rs. 100 crore), and sanitation and drainage of Nainital (Rs. 50 crore).

Source: 14th and 15th FC reports.

73
 Uttarakhand noted an increase of 3.5 percentage points in its share of the Total
Grants-in-aid recommended between 14th and 15th Finance Commissions

States' Share in Total Grants (%) under 14th States' Share in Total Grants (%) under 15th
FC FC
14 14
12 12
10 10
Percentage

8 8
6 6 4.2
4 4
2 0.7 2
0 0

Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand
Sikkim

Sikkim
Mizoram

Goa

Mizoram

Goa
Himachal Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh

Kerala

Andhra Pradesh

Kerala

Himachal Pradesh
Nagaland

Jharkhand

Nagaland

Jharkhand
Maharashtra

Manipur
Telangana

Maharashtra

Telangana

Manipur
Karnataka

Haryana

Karnataka

Haryana
West Bengal

West Bengal
Bihar

Assam

Punjab

Bihar

Punjab
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh

Rajasthan

Assam
Madhya Pradesh
Gujarat

Odisha

Gujarat
Odisha
Tripura

Tripura
Meghalaya

Meghalaya
Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh
Jammu & Kashmir

Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.

Note: i. Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir, the 15th FC did not include it in the States’ share of grants-in-aid from the
Centre; ii. An amount of Rs. 16,400 crore is not included in the total Grants-in-aids figure for the 15th FC. This comprises of three grants (a) School Education (Rs. 4,800 crore), (b) Grants for
aspirational districts and blocks (Rs. 3,150 crore) and (c) Local Bodies grants for (i) Incubation of new Cities (Rs. 8,000 Crore) and (ii) National Data Centre (Rs. 450 Crore). These were not included
in the table which reports the State-wise shares in the 15th FC Report.
74
Uttarakhand had a 3.5 percentage point increase in Total Grants-in-Aid shares between
the 14th and 15th FC recommendations - the highest among the states

Change in Total Grants-in-Aid Shares between 15th and 14th FC

3.5 (percentage points)
4
3
2
Percentage

1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4

Uttar Pradesh

Mizoram
Madhya Pradesh
Assam
Uttarakhand
Punjab
Kerala

Meghalaya

Chhattisgarh

Tamil Nadu

Manipur

Himachal Pradesh
West Bengal

Gujarat
Maharashtra

Goa
Karnataka

Haryana
Sikkim
Odisha

Jharkhand

Nagaland
Rajasthan

Telangana
Bihar
Tripura

Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.
Note: Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir,
the 15th FC did not include it in the States’ share of grants-in-aid from the Centre, and it has been excluded from this chart.
75
 The 14th FC did not recommend any Revenue Deficit Grants for Uttarakhand, while under
the 15th FC recommended 9.6 percent of these Grants to the State

States' Share in Revenue Deficit Grants (%) States' Share in Revenue Deficit Grants (%)
under 14th FC under 15th FC
35 16
30 14
25 12
Percentage

9.6
20 10
15 8
10 6
5 4
0 2
0

Sikkim
Maharashtra
Andhra Pradesh

Kerala

Arunachal Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh

Karnataka
Mizoram

Uttarakhand
Haryana

Goa
Telangana
Jharkhand
Nagaland

Uttar Pradesh
Manipur
West Bengal

Bihar

Punjab
Assam

Chhattisgarh
Jammu & Kashmir

Madhya Pradesh
Tripura

Meghalaya

Gujarat

Odisha
Rajasthan

Tamil Nadu

Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.

Note: Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir, the 15th FC did not include it in the States’ share of Revenue Deficit Grants
from the Centre.
76
 Uttarakhand had a 9.6 percentage point increase in Revenue Deficit Grants
between the 14th and 15th FC recommendations – the highest among all states

Change in Revenue Deficit Grant Shares between 15th and 14th FC

10
9.6 (percentage points)
6
Percentage

2
-2
-6
-10
Uttarakhand

Odisha
Meghalaya

Nagaland
Kerala

Sikkim

Telangana
Karnataka

Mizoram
Rajasthan

Assam
Punjab

Jharkhand
Madhya Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh
Gujarat
Goa
Chhattisgarh
Bihar

Uttar Pradesh

Manipur
Tripura

Haryana
Tamil Nadu

Maharashtra
West Bengal

Arunachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh
Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.
Note: Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir,
the 15th FC did not include it in the States’ share of Revenue Deficit Grants from the Centre, and it has been excluded from
this chart.
77
 Uttarakhand’s share in Grants to Local Government Bodies from the Centre remained
increased from 0.9 percent to 1 percent between 14 th and 15th FCs

States' Share in Grants to Local Govt. Bodies States' Share in Grants to Local Govt.
(%) under 14th FC Bodies (%) under 15th FC
18 18
16 16
14 14
Percentage

12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 0.9 2 1.0
0 0

Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand
Sikkim

Sikkim
Andhra Pradesh

Kerala

Andhra Pradesh

Kerala
Himachal Pradesh

Mizoram

Himachal Pradesh

Mizoram
Haryana

Haryana
Goa

Goa
Nagaland
Telangana

Nagaland

Jharkhand
Jharkhand

Telangana
Maharashtra

Manipur

Maharashtra

Manipur
Karnataka

Karnataka
West Bengal

West Bengal
Bihar

Punjab

Jammu & Kashmir

Bihar

Assam

Punjab
Assam
Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan

Gujarat

Rajasthan

Gujarat
Odisha

Tripura

Odisha

Tripura
Meghalaya

Meghalaya
Uttar Pradesh

Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh
Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.
Note: An amount of Rs. 8,450 crore is not included in the grants for Local Bodies, these include (a) Incubation of new Cities (Rs. 8,000 Crore) and (b) National Data Centre (Rs. 450 Crore). These
were not included in the table which reports the State-wise shares in the 15th FC Report.

78
Uttarakhand had 0.04 percentage point change in Local Government Bodies’
Grants between the 14th and 15th FC recommendations

Change in Grant Shares for Local Government Bodies between 15th

0.4 and 14th FC (percentage points)
0.3
0.2
Percentage

0.1 0.04
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Uttar Pradesh
Mizoram
Assam

Punjab

Madhya Pradesh
Meghalaya
Kerala

Uttarakhand

Himachal Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
Manipur

West Bengal
Gujarat
Goa
Haryana
Maharashtra

Sikkim

Odisha

Karnataka
Telangana
Nagaland

Rajasthan
Jharkhand
Bihar
Tripura

Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.
Note: Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and
Kashmir, the 15th FC did not include it in the States’ share of Local Government Bodies’ Grants from the Centre, and
it has been excluded from this chart.
79
Uttarakhand’s recommended share in the Grants for Disaster Management from the Centre
increased from 1.9 percent by 14 th FC to 4.2 percent by the 15th FC

States' Share in Disaster Management States' Share in Disaster Management

Grants (%) under 14th FC Grants (%) under 15th FC
16 16
14 14
12 12
Percentage

10 10
8 8
6 6 4.2
4 1.9 4
2 2
0 0
Arunachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand

Sikkim
Andhra Pradesh

Kerala
Himachal Pradesh

Goa
Mizoram
Haryana

Nagaland
Jharkhand

Telangana

Manipur
Maharashtra

Karnataka
West Bengal
Bihar

Punjab
Assam
Madhya Pradesh
Rajasthan

Gujarat
Odisha

Tripura
Meghalaya
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu

Chhattisgarh
Jammu & Kashmir

Uttarakhand

Sikkim
Jharkhand

Himachal Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh

Kerala
Arunachal Pradesh

Mizoram

Goa
Nagaland
West Bengal

Manipur
Maharashtra

Telangana
Haryana
Karnataka
Bihar

Punjab
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh
Odisha

Tripura
Tamil Nadu

Assam

Meghalaya
Uttar Pradesh

Gujarat

Chhattisgarh
Source: 14th and 15th FC reports.
Note: A Disaster Risk Index is calculated for all States, taking into consideration the natural calamities different States are prone to, poverty, and other factors. This index is then weighed by a
factor accounting for the aggregate expenditure of States on disaster management, area and population, to calculate the States’ shares in disaster management grants.

80
Uttarakhand had a 2.3 percentage point increase in Grants for Disaster
Management between the 14th and 15th FC recommendations

Change in Grant Shares for Disaster Management between 15th and

14th FC (percentage points)
4
3 2.3
2
Percentage

1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4

Meghalaya

Himachal Pradesh

Assam

Punjab
Chhattisgarh
Mizoram

West Bengal
Manipur
Uttarakhand

Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh

Kerala
Odisha

Gujarat

Tamil Nadu
Sikkim
Goa

Rajasthan
Andhra Pradesh

Haryana
Bihar
Maharashtra

Arunachal Pradesh
Karnataka

Nagaland

Tripura

Jharkhand
Telangana
Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.
Note: Due to the changed status of Jammu & Kashmir into the new Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir,
the 15th FC did not include it in the States’ share of grants-in-aid from the Centre, and it has been excluded from this chart.

81
Uttarakhand’s share in Sector-Specific Grants is 2.9 percent of the total. It received 8.4 percent of the grants
for maintenance of PMGSY Roads, followed by 2.1 percent each of the health and education grants as well as
grants for statistics. A total of Rs. 1,600 crore was recommended in State-Specific grants, of which, Rs. 950
crore was directed towards the Jamrani dam multipurpose project for drinking water and sanitation

States' Share in Sector-Specific Grants (%) States' Share in State-Specific Grants (%)
under 15th FC under 15th FC
14 14
12 12
Percentage

10 10
8 8
6 6
4 2.9 4 3.2
2 2
0 0
Himachal Pradesh

Himachal Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh
Kerala

Sikkim

Kerala

Sikkim
Maharashtra

Maharashtra

Mizoram
Mizoram
Arunachal Pradesh

Uttarakhand

Arunachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand

Goa
Goa
Madhya Pradesh

Pradesh

Jharkhand
Jharkhand
Telangana

Karnataka

Telangana
Karnataka

Haryana

Haryana
Nagaland

Nagaland
Punjab
Uttar Pradesh

Manipur

Meghalaya

Manipur
Uttar Pradesh

Tripura
Meghalaya
West Bengal

Tripura
Bihar

Bihar

West Bengal

Punjab
Assam

Assam
Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh
Odisha

Gujarat

Odisha
Rajasthan

Rajasthan
Gujarat

Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu

Madhya
Source: 14th and 15th FC Reports.
Note: i. Other sector-specific grants and the State’s shares in each include grants for judiciary (0.7 percent) and performance incentive grants for agriculture (0.6 percent); ii. The remaining State-
specific grants were distributed among Song dam drinking water project for Dehradun (Rs. 500 crore), sanitation, waste disposal and drainage in Pauri Garhwal (Rs. 100 crore), and sanitation and
drainage of Nainital (Rs. 50 crore).
82
Climate Change under the FC
➢ Looking at the last two decades, there has been a shift in how the issue of climate change has been addressed by different Finance
Commissions.
➢ 12th and 13th FCs
• The 12th FC recommended grants worth Rs. 1,000 crore to be shared by States for the Maintenance of Forests, in addition to what the
States were spending through their respective forest departments. The amount was distributed among the States based on their forest
area, and it was to be spent for preservation of forest wealth . [refer to Chapter 10, pg. 175, 184-185]
• Expanding on the same, the 13th FC recommended Environment Grants worth Rs. 15,000 crore to States, which covered three areas:
protection of forests, renewable energy, and water sector management (Rs. 5,000 crore each). [refer pg. 205 (table 12.1), pg. 210-217]
➢ 14th and 15th FCs
• The 14th FC approached climate change and sustainable economic development from a fiscal perspective, and with the view that tax
devolution should be the primary route of transfer of resources to States, increased the States’ share in the divisible pool to 42 percent
(from 32 percent under the 13th FC). [refer pg. 31 (point 2.33), pg. 103, 107 (point 8.27), pg. 180 (point 12.34-12.35]
• Forest cover was introduced as a criteria for tax devolution by the 14 th FC, to continue accounting for concerns related to climate change
and to encourage States to maintain higher forest covers. They assigned 7.5 percent weight to forest cover in the tax devolution matrix.
• The 15th FC maintained this recommendation, and assigned a higher weight of 10 percent to forest and ecology in the tax devolution
matrix.
• The 15th FC also made State-specific grant recommendations (based on specific requests from States). Very few of them are categorized
under climate-change, and some others align with one or more of the three environment goals specified by the 13 th FC: Arunachal
Pradesh (Rs. 355 crore, renewable energy), Goa (Rs. 500 crore, alternative power sources, waste management), Jharkhand (Rs. 700
crore, renewable energy), Kerala (Rs. 500 crore, forest conservation), Maharashtra (Rs. 500 crore, forest conservation), Punjab (Rs. 390
crore, includes support for reduction in environment pollution caused by stubble burning), Rajasthan (Rs. 400 crore, integrated water
management), Tamil Nadu (Rs. 200 crore, revamping water bodies to adapt to climate change). [refer Annex 10.9, pg. 803-810 (summary),
Annex 10.10, pg. 811-837]
Source: Reports from the 12th to 14th FCs
83
 7. Uttarakhand Fiscal
Responsibility and Budget
Management Act, 2005

84
 Status of Fiscal Rule in Uttarakhand
➢ Following the Twelfth Finance Commission’s recommendations for prudent fiscal management, the Uttarakhand State Government
enacted the Uttarakhand Fiscal Responsibility Act and Budget Management Act (FRBM) in 2005, in line with Union Fiscal
Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003.

➢ The State Government is required to present a Medium Term Fiscal Policy Statement alongside the budget every year.

➢ As per the Uttarakhand FRBM Act, 2005, the State was required to:
1. Revenue Deficit: Reduce its revenue deficit to nil within a period of four financial years from 2005-06 to 2008-09 and reduce
revenue deficit as a percentage of GSDP in each year to achieve zero revenue deficit
2. Fiscal Deficit: Reduce fiscal deficit to not more than 3 percent of GSDP in the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 and reduce fiscal deficit as
a percentage of GSDP in each financial year to achieve the same
3. Total Outstanding Liabilities: Total liabilities should not exceed 25 percent of estimated GSDP in the period starting from 1st April
2005 and ending on 31st March 2015
4. Not to give any guarantee for any amount exceeding the limit stipulated under any rule or law of the State Government existin g at
the time of the FRBM Act coming into force or any rule or law made by the State Government subsequent to the Uttarakhand
FRBM Act coming into force.
Source: The Uttarakhand Government Gazette, State Finances Audit Reports of the CAG ([Link] 85
Status of Fiscal Rule in Uttarakhand
➢ 2011 Amendment
1. Revenue Deficit: Reduce revenue deficit to nil in a period of four years from 1 st April 2011 to 31st March 2015
2. Fiscal Deficit: Reduce the fiscal deficit as a percentage of GSDP to not more than 3.5 percent of GSDP in 2011-12 and
2012-13, and not more than 3 percent in 2013-14 and 2014-15
3. Total Outstanding Liabilities: Ensure that during the period of four financial years from 1st April 2011 to 31st March
2015, the total estimated debt liability does not exceed 41.1 percent, 40 percent , 38.5 percent and 37.2 percent
respectively of its GSDP
➢ 2016 Amendment
• Fiscal Deficit: During the period 2016-17 to 2019-20, the State’s fiscal deficit to GSDP ratio should be anchored to 3
percent. The State would be eligible for flexibility of 0.25 percent over and above this for any given year for which the
borrowing limits are to be fixed if the debt to GSDP ratio is less than 25 percent in the preceding year. The State
would be further eligible for an additional borrowing limit of 0.25 percent in any given year for which the borrowing
limits are to be fixed if the interest payments are less than or equal to 10 percent of the revenue receipts in the
preceding year. The State can therefore have a maximum fiscal deficit to GSDP ratio of 3.5 percent during the award
period of the Fourteenth FC. The flexibility of availing additional borrowing under either of the two provisions (or
both) would be available only if the State does not have any revenue deficit in the year in which the borrowing is
being availed, and the immediately preceding year.
86
Source: The Uttarakhand Government Gazette, State Finances Audit Reports of the CAG ([Link]
Status of Fiscal Rule in Uttarakhand
➢ 2020 Amendment
1. Fiscal Deficit: For the financial year 2020-21, the State’s fiscal deficit to GSDP ratio would be enhanced by 2 percent
over and above the 3 percent limit based on the following criterion:
• Increase up to 0.5 percent without any condition
• 1 percent in four tranches of 0.25 percent with each tranche linked to clearly specified measurable reforms as
under
• Implementation of One Nation One Card system
• Ease of Doing Business reforms
• Urban Local Body/Utility reforms
• Power Sector Reforms
• Remaining 0.50 percent increase may be obtained on undertaking 3 out of the 4 reforms
➢ 2023 Amendment
1. Fiscal Deficit: Fiscal Deficit as a percent of GSDP for the financial years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-
26 shall not exceed 4 percent, 3.5 percent, 3 percent, 3 percent and 3 percent, respectively
2. Total Liabilities: Total liabilities as a percent of GSDP for the financial years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25, and
2025-26 shall not exceed 32.6 percent, 33.3 percent, 33.1 percent, 32.8 percent and 32.5 percent respectively
87
Source: The Uttarakhand Government Gazette, State Finances Audit Reports of the CAG ([Link]
 State Finances Audit Report of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India (CAG) for Uttarakhand
• During the period 2017-18 to 2021-22, Uttarakhand successfully eliminated its revenue deficit and contained its fiscal deficit t o
GSDP ratio within the limits stipulated in the state FRBM Act in 2020-21 and 2021-22 only.

• The State contained its total outstanding liabilities to GSDP ratio as per the state FRBM Act in 2017 -18 only and has since
exceeded the limits.

Source: State Finances Audit Reports of the CAG for 2021-22. 88

Status of Fiscal Rule in Uttarakhand
• Revenue surplus in 2024-25 is estimated to be 1.2 percent of GSDP (Rs. 4,737 crore), higher than the
revised estimates for 2023-24 (0.9 percent of GSDP). In 2023-24, the revenue surplus is expected to
be 29 percent lower than the budget estimate

• Fiscal deficit for 2024-25 is targeted at 2.4 percent of GSDP (Rs. 9,416 crore). In 2023-24, as per the
revised estimates, fiscal deficit is expected to be 2.2 percent of GSDP, lower than the budget
estimate for 2023-24.

• At the end of 2024-25, the outstanding liabilities are estimated to be 24.2 percent of GSDP, lower
than the revised estimate for 2023-24 (24.9 percent of GSDP). The outstanding liabilities have
significantly rose in 2020-21 (32.7 percent of GSDP), and moderated thereafter.

• As of March 31, 2024, the State’s outstanding guarantee is estimated to be Rs. 119.4 crore, i.e., 0.03
percent of Uttarakhand’s GSDP in 2023-24.

Source: [Link]
Table 5: Fiscal Parameters set in the FRBM Act in various years
Fiscal Fiscal Parameters set in the Act
Parameters 2005 2011 2016 2020 2023
Reduce its revenue deficit to
nil within a period of four
Revenue financial years from 2005-06
Reduce revenue deficit to nil in
Deficit to 2008-09 and reduce
a period of four years from 1st Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned
revenue deficit as a
April 2011 to 31st March 2015
(Rs crore) percentage of GSDP in each
year to achieve zero revenue
deficit

In view of COVID-19 pandemic

during 2020-21, the State Fiscal Deficit as a percent
Reduce fiscal deficit to not
Reduce the fiscal deficit as a Government was allowed to avail 2 of GSDP for the financial
Fiscal Deficit more than 3 percent of GSDP Maximum fiscal deficit not
percentage of GSDP to not percent additional borrowing of years 2021-22, 2022-23,
in the period 2004-05 to more than 3.5 percent of the
more than 3.5 percent of GSDP the GSDP over and above the 2023-24, 2024-25, and
2008-09 and reduce fiscal GSDP
(as percentage in 2011-12 and 2012-13, and not target of 3 percent of the GSDP 2025-26 shall not exceed
deficit as a percentage of
of GSDP) more than 3 percent in 2013-14 (up to 5 percent of GSDP in the 4 percent, 3.5 percent, 3
GSDP in each financial year Subject to conditions
and 2014-15 year 2020-21) subject to percent, 3 percent and 3
to achieve the same
implementation of State Specific percent, respectively
Reforms

Total liabilities as a
Ensure that during the period
Total percent of GSDP for the
Total liabilities should not of four financial years from 1st
Outstanding financial years 2021-22,
exceed 25 percent of April 2011 to 31st March 2015,
2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25,
Debt estimated GSDP in the the total estimated debt Maintain the debt liability at
No change and 2025-26 shall not
period starting from 1st April liability does not exceed 41.1 25 percent of the GSDP
exceed 32.6 percent, 33.3
(as percentage 2005 and ending on 31st percent, 40 percent , 38.5
percent, 33.1 percent,
of GSDP) March 2015 percent and 37.2 percent
32.8 percent, and 32.5
respectively of its GSDP
percent, respectively

Source: The Uttarakhand Government Gazette, State Finances Audit Reports of the CAG.
90
8. Extra Slides on Fiscal Indicators

• Fiscal Data covers the fiscal period 1990-91 - 2022-23

91
 Fiscal Indicators
(I) Benchmarked with respect to Median of Larger
States

Note: In Section 5, the benchmark was defined as the median of all States. This variable was computed as a
percentage of GSDP for each State, and the median was taken across 29 States (excluding all Union Territories).

In contrast, the benchmark in this section refers to the median of larger States only. This variable was computed
as a percentage of GSDP for each State, and the median was taken across 22 major States (Andhra Pradesh,
Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand
and West Bengal).
92
As of 2022-23, Uttarakhand ran Fiscal deficit and Primary Deficit of 2.7 and 0.7 percent of its
GSDP respectively, with both deficits lower than that of a median State

Fiscal Deficit, % of GSDP Primary Deficit, % of GSDP

8 6
7.4
7
4.6
6 4
Percent of GSDP

Percent of GSDP
5 3.6
1.6
4 2
3
2 0
2.7
1 0.7
0 -2

2014-15

2016-17

2021-22
2010-11

2018-19
2019-20

2022-23
2005-06

2007-08

2009-10
2021-22

2020-21
2003-04
2001-02
2016-17

2019-20
2010-11

2020-21

2002-03
2009-10

2006-07
2003-04

2022-23

2004-05
2014-15

2018-19
2007-08

2017-18
2015-16
2001-02

2008-09

2013-14
2011-12
2005-06

2012-13
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12

2015-16
2012-13

Uttarakhand Median_Larger States Uttarakhand Median_Larger States

Source: i. Fiscal Deficit (FD) is from RBI State Finances Report (SFR, 2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Primary Deficit (PD) is calculated (Fiscal Deficit – Interest Payments). Interest Payments is sourced from RBI SFR; ii. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated
for each State, and its median across 22 States has been shown (all Union Territories and North Eastern States, except Assam, are excluded); iii. The significant fiscal and primary
deficit in 2004-05 could result from the highest Total Expenditure in last two decades; iv. The fiscal and primary deficit improved after 2004-05 as a consequence of the enactment
of the State FRBM Act in October 2005 [Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011]. 93
Uttarakhand’s Revenue Deficit was 0.8 percent of its GSDP in 2022-23, while a median
State ran a Revenue Deficit of 0.4 percent of its GSDP

4 Revenue Surplus (+)/Deficit (-), % of GSDP

2.1
2 0.8
Percent of GSDP

-2 -0.4

-3.3
-4

2016-17
2010-11

2018-19
2014-15

2021-22
2019-20

2022-23
2007-08
2005-06

2009-10
2002-03

2020-21
2003-04

2006-07
2001-02

2008-09
2004-05

2017-18
2012-13
2013-14

2015-16
2011-12
Uttarakhand Median_Larger States
Source: i. Revenue Deficit is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 22 States has been shown (all Union
Territories and North Eastern States, except Assam, are excluded); ii. The significant revenue deficit in 2004-05 could result from the highest
Total Expenditure in the last two decades; iii. The revenue deficit continued to be in surplus during the years from 2005-06 to 2008-09 on the
back of containment of revenue expenditure and increase in State’s share in central taxes consequent to the Twelfth Finance Commission
award [Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011]. 94
Uttarakhand’s Total Revenue Receipts (own tax, own non-tax, and shared by the Centre)
was higher than what a median State collects, at about 17.2 percent of its GSDP in 2022-23

Revenue Receipts, % of GSDP

20
18 17.2
16
Percent of GSDP

14
12 15.3
10
8
6
4
2
0

2016-17
2014-15
2010-11

2018-19

2021-22
2019-20

2022-23
2005-06

2009-10
2007-08

2020-21
2003-04
2001-02
2002-03

2008-09
2006-07
2004-05

2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2012-13
Uttarakhand Median_Larger States
Source: i. Revenue Receipts from RBI State Finances Report (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 22 States has been
shown (all Union Territories and North Eastern States, except Assam, are excluded).
95
 Uttarakhand’s Own-Tax Revenue is 5.6 percent of the GSDP which is below a median State.
Its Own Non-Tax Revenue and Transfers from Centre were 0.5 and 2.6 percentage points
higher than that of a median State as of 2022-23

State's Own Tax Revenue, % State's Own Non-Tax Transfers from Centre, % of
8 of GSDP Revenue, % of GSDP 12 GSDP 10.0
2
7 6.4 2 1.6 10
Percent of GSDP

6 2
5 1 8
1 1.1
4 5.6 1 6
3 1 4
2 1 7.4
0 2
1 0
0 0 0

2021-22
2019-20
2005-06
2007-08
2009-10
2003-04
2001-02

2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2021-22
2007-08

2019-20
2009-10
2005-06
2003-04
2001-02

2017-18
2013-14
2011-12

2015-16

2021-22
2019-20
2003-04
2005-06
2007-08
2009-10
2001-02

2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
Uttarakhand Median_Larger States Uttarakhand Median_Larger States Uttarakhand Median_Larger States
Source: i. Own-Tax Revenue, Own Non-Tax Revenue, and Transfers from the Centre from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 22 States has been shown (all Union Territories and
North Eastern States, except Assam, are excluded); ii. Transfers from the Centre include both Tax and Non-Tax transfers. 96
In 2022-23, Uttarakhand’s Total Expenditure at 19.9 percent of its GSDP was about 0.6
percentage points lower than the Expenditure of a median State

Total Expenditure, % of GSDP

25 21.7
19.9
20
Percent of GSDP

15
19.3
10

2021-22
2014-15

2019-20
2016-17
2010-11

2020-21
2018-19
2003-04

2022-23
2001-02

2007-08

2009-10
2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2017-18
2013-14

2015-16
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12
2012-13
Uttarakhand Median_Larger States
Source: i. Total Expenditure is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as Revenue Expenditure (RevEx) plus Capital expenditure (CapEx); ii. The variable as
a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 22 States has been shown (all Union Territories
and North Eastern States, except Assam, are excluded); iii. The spike in Total Expenditure in 2004-05 was influenced by a
sharp increase in interest payments due to higher payments on account of market loans and withdrawal of high cost NSSF
97
borrowings [Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011].
Uttarakhand’s Revenue Expenditure is 16.4 percent of its GSDP, about 0.5 percentage points
lower than a median State

RevEx, % of GSDP RevEx, % of Total Exp.

20 16.9 95

Percent of Total Expenditure

18
16 90 83.9
Percent of GSDP

14 85
12
10 16.4 80
8 10.6 82.4
6 75
4 70
2
- 65
2010-11

2016-17

2022-23
2021-22
2007-08

2018-19
2009-10

2019-20
2014-15

2020-21
2003-04
2002-03

2005-06
2001-02

2006-07

2017-18
2008-09

2011-12
2004-05

2013-14

2015-16
2012-13

2016-17

2022-23
2007-08

2018-19

2021-22
2010-11

2014-15

2019-20
2005-06

2009-10

2020-21
2002-03
2003-04
2001-02

2006-07

2017-18
2004-05

2008-09

2013-14
2011-12

2015-16
2012-13
Uttarakhand Median_Larger States Uttarakhand Median_Larger States
Source: i. RevEx is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as RevEx + CapEx; ii. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 22
States has been shown (all Union Territories and North Eastern States, except Assam, are excluded).
98
 Uttarakhand’s CapEx is 3.5 percent of its GSDP, higher than what a median State
spends on CapEx (as percent of GSDP). The CapEx as percent of total expenditure was
1.5 percentage points higher than what a median State spent in 2022-23

CapEx, % of GSDP CapEx, % of Total Exp.

Percent of Total Expenditure

6 30
5.2
5 25
Percent of GSDP

4 3.5 20 17.6
3 15
3.4 16.1
2 10
1 5

- -

2021-22
2019-20
2016-17
2010-11

2014-15

2020-21
2009-10

2018-19

2022-23
2003-04

2007-08
2001-02

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2015-16
2004-05

2017-18
2008-09

2011-12
2012-13
2021-22
2010-11

2019-20

2022-23
2007-08

2016-17
2009-10

2020-21
2003-04

2014-15

2018-19
2001-02

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2017-18
2013-14
2011-12
2004-05

2008-09

2015-16
2012-13

Uttarakhand Median_Larger States Uttarakhand Median_Larger States

Source: i. CapEx is calculated as Capital Outlay + Loans and Advances given by the State government and the data for both is taken from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is
from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as RevEx + CapEx; ii. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 22 States has been shown
(all Union Territories and North Eastern States, except Assam, are excluded); iii. The spike in capital expenditure in 2005-06 was due to a very high development expenditure
[Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011]. 99
 Uttarakhand has seen a consistent rise in its Public Debt since 2014 but as of 2022-23 public debt
at 26.5 percent of its GSDP was lower than that of a median State by 4.2 percentage points. Its
Contingent Liabilities have declined consistently and as of 2021-22 these were 0.1 percent of its
GSDP

Total Public Debt, % of GSDP Contingent Liabilities, % of GSDP

40 5
35 30.7
4
30 4
Percent of GSDP

Percent of GSDP
25 3
26.5 3
20 1.7
2
15
20.3 2
10 1
5 1
0.1
- -

2016-17
2014-15

2018-19

2021-22
2010-11

2019-20
2007-08

2009-10

2020-21
2008-09
2006-07

2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2012-13
2016-17

2018-19
2014-15
2010-11

2021-22
2019-20

2022-23
2007-08
2005-06

2009-10

2020-21
2003-04

2006-07
2001-02
2002-03

2004-05

2008-09

2015-16

2017-18
2012-13
2013-14
2011-12

Uttarakhand Median_Larger States Uttarakhand Median_Larger States

Source: i. Public Debt and State-wise contingent liabilities data has been taken from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. The variable as a percent of GSDP has been calculated for each State, and its median across 22 States has been shown (all Uni on Territories and North Eastern States,
except Assam, are excluded); ii. The data for Contingent Liabilities is available only from 2006-07 for Uttarakhand; iii. During 2014-15 to 2018-19, a major portion (ranging between
60.9 percent and 80.9 percent) of public debt receipt was being utilised for repayment of earlier borrowed funds and payment of interest [Source – CAG report, 2020]. 100
 Fiscal Indicators
(II) Benchmarked with respect to All States/UTs

Note: In Section 5, the benchmark was defined as the median of all States. This variable was computed as a
percentage of GSDP for each State, and the median was taken across 29 States (excluding all Union Territories).

In contrast, the benchmark in this section refers to the All States/UTs number, taken as available from the source
and expressed as a percentage of national Gross Domestic Product.

101
 In 2022-23, Uttarakhand ran a Fiscal Deficit 2.7 percent of its GSDP, lower than an average
State, and its Primary Deficit at 0.7 percent of its GSDP was 1 percentage point lower than
an average State

Fiscal Deficit, % of GSDP Primary Deficit, % of GSDP

10 6
4.6
8 7.4 3.6
4
Percent of GSDP

Percent of GSDP
6
1.7
2
4 3.4

0 0.7
2 2.7

0 -2

2016-17

2018-19
2014-15
2010-11

2021-22
2019-20

2022-23
2021-22

2005-06

2007-08

2009-10
2019-20

2020-21
2003-04
2010-11

2016-17

2020-21

2001-02

2006-07
2022-23
2003-04

2009-10

2002-03
2014-15

2004-05

2008-09
2018-19
2001-02

2007-08

2015-16

2017-18
2005-06

2013-14
2012-13
2002-03

2011-12
2006-07

2017-18
2013-14
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12

2015-16
2012-13

Uttarakhand All States/UT Uttarakhand All States/UT

Source: i. Fiscal Deficit is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. Primary Deficit calculated (Fiscal Deficit – Interest Payments). Interest Payments was sourced from RBI SFR; iii. State GSDP and
national GDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. All States/UTs shows the total of all States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross domestic product; ii. The significant fiscal and primary deficit in 2004-05 could result
from the highest Total Expenditure in last two decades; iii. The fiscal and primary deficit improved after 2004 -05 as a consequence of the enactment of the State FRBM102 Act in
October 2005 [Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011].
Uttarakhand ran a Revenue Surplus 0.8 percent of its GSDP in 2022-23, while an average
State ran a Deficit 0.5 percent of its GSDP

Revenue Surplus (+)/Deficit (-), % of GSDP

4
2.1
2
Percent of GSDP

0.8
0
-0.5

-2

-4 -3.3

2021-22
2010-11

2019-20

2020-21
2016-17
2014-15

2022-23
2009-10

2018-19
2007-08
2001-02

2003-04

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12

2015-16
2012-13
Uttarakhand All States/UT
Source: i. Revenue Deficit from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP and national GDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. All States/UTs shows the total of all States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross domestic product; ii. The significant
revenue deficit in 2004-05 could result from the highest Total Expenditure in the last two decades; iii. The revenue deficit continued to
be in surplus during the years from 2005-06 to 2008-09 on the back of containment of revenue expenditure and increase in State’s
share in central taxes consequent to the Twelfth Finance Commission award [Source - Reserve Bank of India Occasional Papers, vol 32,
103
2011].
Uttarakhand’s total Revenue Receipts (Own Tax, Own Non-Tax, and shared by the Centre)
was about 2.8 percentage points higher than what an average State collected, at 17.2 of its
GSDP in 2022-23

Revenue Receipts, % of GSDP

20
17.2
16
Percent of GSDP

14.4
12

2016-17

2018-19

2021-22
2010-11

2014-15

2019-20

2022-23
2007-08
2005-06
2002-03

2009-10

2020-21
2003-04
2001-02

2006-07
2004-05

2008-09

2015-16

2017-18
2012-13

2013-14
2011-12
Uttarakhand All States/UT
Source: i. Revenue Receipts from RBI State Finances Report (2022-23); ii. State GSDP and national GDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: All States/UTs shows the total of all States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross domestic product.
104
 Uttarakhand’s Own Tax Revenue, Own Non-Tax Revenue and Transfers from Centre were
5.6, 1.6 and 10 percent of its GSDP respectively. Nearly 60 percent of their total revenues are
on account of Transfers from the Centre

State's Own Tax Revenue, % of State's Own Non-Tax Revenue, % Transfers from Centre, % of
GSDP of GSDP GSDP
7 6.6 3 12
6 10.0
10
Percent of GSDP

5 5.6
2 1.6 8
4
6 6.7
3
1 1.0 4
2
1 2
- 0 -

2019-20
2009-10

2013-14
2015-16

2021-22
2017-18
2001-02
2003-04
2005-06
2007-08

2011-12
2009-10

2017-18
2001-02

2019-20
2021-22
2013-14
2015-16
2007-08

2011-12
2003-04
2005-06

Uttarakhand All States/UT Uttarakhand All States/UT Uttarakhand All States/UT

Source: i. Own Tax and Non-Tax Revenue, and Transfers from Centre from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. The State GSDP and national GDP data is from MoSPI (2022-
23).
Note: i. Centre include both tax- and non-tax revenue transfers; ii. All States/UTs shows the total of all States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross
domestic product; iii. Transfers from the Centre include both Tax and Non-Tax transfers. 105
In 2022-23, Uttarakhand’s Expenditure was 19.9 percent of its GSDP, about 2 percentage
points higher than an average State

Total Expenditure, % of GSDP

25
21.7
Percent of GSDP

20 19.9

17.8
15

10

2021-22
2014-15

2016-17

2019-20
2010-11

2020-21
2003-04

2018-19

2022-23
2007-08

2009-10
2001-02

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2015-16
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12

2012-13
Uttarakhand All States/UT
Source: i. Total Expenditure is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. The State GSDP and national GDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. The Total Expenditure is calculated as sum of revenue expenditure (RevEx) and capital expenditure (CapEx); ii. All States/UTs shows the total of all
States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross domestic product; iii. The spike in Total Expenditure in 2004-05 was influenced by a sharp increase in
interest payments due to higher payments on account of market loans and withdrawal of high cost NSSF borrowings [Source - Reserve Bank of India
Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011].
106
 Uttarakhand’s RevEx is 16.4 percent of its GSDP, 1.6 percentage points higher than other
States’ average, while its RevEx as a percent of the Total Expenditure is about 1 percentage
point lower than an average State

RevEx, % of GSDP RevEx, % of Total Exp.

20 100
17.3

Percent of Total Expenditure

16.4 90
83.3
Percent of GSDP

15
14.8 80 82.4

70
10
10.6
60

5 50

2016-17

2022-23
2007-08

2010-11

2021-22
2018-19
2014-15

2019-20
2009-10

2020-21
2002-03
2003-04

2006-07
2005-06
2001-02

2017-18
2008-09
2004-05

2013-14

2015-16
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11

2016-17

2022-23
2007-08

2018-19

2021-22
2019-20
2014-15
2009-10

2020-21
2002-03
2003-04
2001-02

2005-06
2006-07

2017-18
2008-09
2004-05

2013-14
2012-13

2015-16
2011-12

Uttarakhand All States/UT Uttarakhand All States/UT

Source: i. RevEx is from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP and national GDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as RevEx + CapEx; ii. All States/UTs shows the total of all States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross
domestic product.
107
Uttarakhand’s CapEx is 3.5 percent of its GSDP, about 0.5 percentage points higher than what an average State
spends on CapEx (as percent of GSDP), while as a percentage of total expenditure its CapEx is about 1
percentage point higher than what an average State spends on CapEx

CapEx, % of GSDP CapEx, % of Total Exp.

6 30
5.2

Percent of Total Expenditure

5 25
Percent of GSDP

4 20 17.6
3.5
3 15 16.7
3.0
2 10

1 5

- -

2021-22
2019-20
2010-11

2016-17

2020-21
2014-15

2018-19

2022-23
2003-04

2009-10
2007-08
2001-02

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2004-05

2008-09

2011-12

2015-16
2012-13
2021-22
2019-20
2010-11

2020-21
2016-17
2007-08

2009-10

2022-23
2003-04

2014-15

2018-19
2001-02

2005-06
2002-03

2006-07

2013-14

2017-18
2004-05

2011-12
2008-09

2015-16
2012-13

Uttarakhand All States/UT Uttarakhand All States/UT

Source: i. CapEx is calculated as Capital Outlay + Loans and Advances given by the State government and the data for both is taken from RBI SFR (2022-23);
ii. State GSDP and national GDP data is from MoSPI (2022-23).
Note: i. Total Expenditure is calculated as RevEx + CapEx; ii. All States/UTs shows the total of all States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross
domestic product; iii. The spike in capital expenditure in 2005-06 was due to a very high development expenditure [Source - Reserve Bank of India
Occasional Papers, vol 32, 2011]. 108
 Uttarakhand’s Public Debt has been increasing since 2014, and as of 2022-23 was 26.5
percent of its GSDP, about 1 percentage point lower than the average of other States. Its
contingent liabilities was 0.1 percent of its GSDP, having declined consistently since 2007

Total Public Debt, % of GSDP Contingent Liabilities, % of GSDP

50 5

40 4
3.8

Percent of GSDP
Percent of GSDP

30 27.5 3
26.5
20 2

10 20.3 1
0.1
- -
2016-17
2014-15

2018-19

2021-22
2010-11

2019-20

2022-23
2005-06

2007-08

2009-10

2020-21
2003-04
2001-02
2002-03

2006-07
2004-05

2008-09

2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2012-13

2016-17

2018-19
2014-15

2021-22
2010-11

2019-20
2007-08

2009-10

2020-21
2008-09
2006-07

2017-18
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
2012-13
Uttarakhand All States/UT Uttarakhand All States/UT
Source: i. Public Debt and State-wise contingent liabilities data has been taken from RBI SFR (2022-23); ii. State GSDP and national GDP data is from MoSPI
(2022-23).
Note: i. All States/UTs shows the total of all States, Delhi and Puducherry as a % of national gross domestic product; ii. During 2014-15 to 2018-19, a major
portion (ranging between 60.9 per cent and 80.9 per cent) of public debt receipt was being utilised for repayment of earlier borrowed funds and 109payment
of interest [Source – CAG report, 2020].
9. Annexure
 Glossary of Select Terms

Variable Section Definition

Demography and The dependency ratio is the number of dependents—comprising children aged 0-14 years and older
Dependency Ratio
Employment adults aged 60 years and above—per 100 individuals in the working-age population (15-59 years).

The Child Sex Ratio from Census is the number of females per 1,000 males in the age group of 0-6 years.
Demography and
Sex Ratio
Employment The NFHS Sex Ratio at Birth is the number of female births per 1,000 male births for children born in the
last five years preceding the survey.
The unemployment rate measures the proportion of unemployed individuals within the labour force,
Demography and
Unemployment Rate aged 15 years and above, based on the Usual Status (PS+SS) approach. This method integrates data
Employment
from both the Principal Status (PS) and Subsidiary Status (SS) across rural and urban areas.
The Female Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) refers to the percentage of females aged 15 years
and above who are part of the labour force, either working or actively seeking/available for work,
Female Labour Force Demography and
relative to the total female population in the same age group. It is measured using the Usual Status
Participation Rate Employment
(PS+SS) approach, which combines data from the Principal Status (PS) and Subsidiary Status (SS) to
account for both rural and urban areas.

Demography and The urbanization rate is the annual percentage change in the proportion of the population that lives in
Urbanization Rate
Employment urban areas.

The SDG Index calculates goal-specific scores for the 16 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across
Demography and
SDG Index 113 indicators set by MoSPI to combine into composite scores, ranging from 0 to 100 representing the
Employment
overall performance of a State. The higher the score, the closer the State is to meeting the SDG targets.
 Glossary of Select Terms

Variable Section Definition

The National Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) is calculated by multiplying the Headcount Ratio
Demography and (proportion of multidimensionally poor people) and the Intensity of Poverty (the average percentage of
MPI
Employment deprivations experienced by poor individuals) across 12 indicators of health, education and living
standards.

The Inflation Rate is calculated as the annual growth rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which has
Inflation Rate Economic Structure
been calculated by averaging the monthly CPI values for each financial year

Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP), at current market prices with 2011-12 as the base year, represents
GSDP Economic Structure the total value of goods and services produced within a State. This series has been spliced with earlier
GSDP series to generate the long time series.
Gross State Value Added (GSVA) is the sum of the value added by all sectors—agriculture, industry, and
GSVA Economic Structure services—at current market prices with 2011-12 as the base year. This series has been spliced with earlier
GSDP series to generate the long time series.
The decadal average of growth rates is calculated using real variables to determine the shares of
Decadal Average of Growth
Economic Structure sectors. It represents the simple average of the annual growth rates over a ten-year period, from 2013-14
Rates
to 2022-23.
Investment through capital instruments by a resident outside India in an unlisted Indian company; or in
Foreign Direct Investment 10 percent or more of the post-issue paid-up equity capital of a listed Indian company. Additionally, in
Trade
(FDI) case an existing investment by a resident outside India in capital instruments of a listed Indian company
falls to a level below 10 percent, the investment shall continue to be treated as FDI.

Exports refer to transactions where goods are supplied with/without leaving the country, and payment
Exports Trade
for these supplies is received either in Indian rupees or in freely convertible foreign exchange.
 Glossary of Select Terms

Variable Section Definition

Socio-Economic Indicators The Pupil-Teacher Ratio is the average number of students (pupils) per teacher in a school or
Pupil-Teacher Ratio
(Education) educational institution.

Socio-Economic Indicators
Infant Mortality Rate The probability of a child dying between birth and the first birthday, expressed per 1,000 live births.
(Health)

Socio-Economic Indicators
Under-Five Mortality Rate The probability of a child dying between birth and the fifth birthday, expressed per 1,000 live births.
(Health)

The average number of children a woman is expected to have by the end of her childbearing years,
Socio-Economic Indicators assuming she experiences the current age-specific fertility rates throughout her reproductive life. Age-
Total Fertility Rate
(Health) specific fertility rates are calculated based on the three years preceding the survey, using detailed birth
histories provided by women.
Includes children aged 12-23 months who have received one dose of Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG)
Socio-Economic Indicators
Children Fully Immunized vaccine for tuberculosis, three doses of DPT vaccine for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus, three doses
(Health)
for polio vaccine and one dose of measles vaccine at any time before the survey.

Socio-Economic Indicators Children under five years whose weight-for-age score is below minus two standard deviations from the
Underweight Children
(Health) median of the reference population are classified as underweight.

Socio-Economic Indicators Children under age five years whose height-for-age score is below minus two standard deviations from
Stunting among Children
(Health) the median of the reference population are considered short for their age (stunted).
 Glossary of Select Terms

Variable Section Definition

Anaemia among Children, Socio-Economic Children under five years and Women aged 15-49 years with haemoglobin levels below 11 grams/decilitre
Anaemia among Women Indicators (Health) are considered anaemic.

Fiscal Deficit is calculated as the difference between the total expenditure and the total revenue
Fiscal Deficit Fiscal Indicators
(excluding borrowings).

Primary Deficit Fiscal Indicators Primary Deficit is calculated as the difference between fiscal deficit and interest payments.

Revenue Surplus/Deficit is a measure of the difference between the revenue receipts and revenue
Revenue Surplus (+)/Deficit (-) Fiscal Indicators
expenditure.

Total Revenue Receipts is calculated as the sum of own tax revenue, own non-tax revenue and transfers
Total Revenue Receipts Fiscal Indicators
from the centre.

Own Tax Revenue Fiscal Indicators Own Tax Revenue is the revenue collected by the government through taxes.

Own Non-Tax Revenue is the revenue collected by the government from non-tax sources like various
Own Non Tax Revenue Fiscal Indicators
services, fees, and penalties.

Revenue Expenditure refers to government spending that is incurred for the regular functioning of its
Revenue Expenditure Fiscal Indicators
departments and services, meeting its operational needs, and fulfilling its recurring liabilities.
 Glossary of Select Terms
Variable Section Definition
Transfers from the Centre refer to central taxes and grants devolved to States as untied funds for States
Transfers from the Centre Fiscal Indicators
to spend according to their discretion, under the recommendations of the Finance Commission.

Capital Expenditure refers to government spending on creating physical and financial assets or reducing
Capital Expenditure Fiscal Indicators
its liabilities.

Public debt include borrowings and other financial commitments arising from past fiscal operations
Total Public Debt Fiscal Indicators
that are yet to be repaid at a given point in time.

Contingent Liabilities are the commitments made by State governments to repay loans or other
Contingent Liabilities Fiscal Indicators liabilities incurred by entities such as public sector undertakings (PSUs), corporations, local bodies, or
other organizations if they fail to meet their debt obligations.
Off-Budget Borrowings involve the government taking on debt through entities, public sector
Off-Budget Borrowings Fiscal Indicators undertakings (PSUs), or other off-budget mechanisms, rather than directly from the government’s own
borrowing channels that are not included in the official government budget.

Health Expenditure Fiscal Indicators Health Expenditure is calculated as the sum of Medical, Public Health, and Family Welfare expenditure.

Subsidies are financial assistance provided by the government to individuals, businesses, or sectors to
Subsidies Fiscal Indicators
support the production, consumption, or pricing of specific goods and services.

Buoyancy of Revenue The Buoyancy of Revenue Expenditure is calculated as the ratio between the year-on-year growth rate
Fiscal Indicators
Expenditure with GSDP of Revenue Expenditure and that of GSDP.

Committed Expenditure Fiscal Indicators Committed Expenditure is calculated as the sum of Wages, Salaries, and Pensions.
 List of Acronyms
• AISHE All India Survey on Higher Education
• AT&C Aggregate Technical & Commercial
• BSR Basic Statistical Returns
• CAG Comptroller and Auditor General
• CapEx Capital Expenditure
• CHIPS Connect, Harness, Innovate, Protect and Sustain
• DGFT Directorate General of Foreign Trade
• DISCOMS Distribution Utilities/Companies
• EPWRF Economic and Political Weekly Research Foundation
• FC Finance Commission
• FLPR Female Labour Participation Rate
• FRA Fiscal Responsibility Act
• GPI Gender Parity Index
• GSDP Gross State Domestic Product
• GDP Gross Domestic Product
• GSVA Gross State Value Added
• GVA Gross Value Added
• MoSPI Ministry of Statistical Programme and Implementation 116
 List of Acronyms
• MPI Multidimensional Poverty Index
• MTFP Medium Term Fiscal Policy
• NFHS National Family Health Survey
• PFC Power Finance Corporation
• PLFS Periodic Labour Force Survey
• RBI Reserve Bank of India
• RevEx Revenue Expenditure
• SDG Sustainable Development Goal
• SFR State Finances Report
• SPSE State Public Sector Enterprises
• SRS Sample Registration System
• SC Scheduled Caste
• ST Scheduled Tribe
• UDAY Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana
• U-DISE Unified District Information System for Education
• UPCL Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited
117
Selected Research Topics
State SUMMARY

DATA REPOSITORY

NCAER-NITI AAYOG State FISCAL AND ECONOMIC DASHBOARD

Research & Commentary

• Paper
• Op-eds
• Presentations

This a product of the NCAER-NITI States’ Economic Forum. Prepared under the team led by Dr Poonam Gupta and Dr Anil Sharma, comprising of Dr
Arjita Chandna, Dr Janani Rangan, Dr Jayanta Talukder, Ayesha Ahmed, S Priyadarshini, Aakansha Atal, Aliva Smruti, Shubhashree Jha, Sneha Jyoti A red and white state report
Kundu and Rochelle Prakash; Product Design by Devanshi Mankotia; Co-ordination by Pooja Singh; IT Support by Praveen Sachdeva; Webpage by
Description automatically generated
Mesmer Studios and Tableau Dashboards by Uneecops Business Solutions. Comments are welcome at stateseconforum@[Link].

National Council of Applied Economic Research NCAER India Centre, 11 Indraprastha Estate New Delhi 110002
118