(a) Distinguish between fiscal federalism, fiscal consolidation and cooperative federalism. Comment on the outcome of cooperative…

(a) Conceptual Distinctions and Outcomes of Cooperative Federalism

Fiscal federalism is characterized by the constitutional division of revenue-raising powers and expenditure responsibilities across government tiers to resolve vertical and horizontal imbalances—a structural property absent in the other two concepts. Fiscal consolidation, by contrast, uniquely possesses the property of time-bound macroeconomic targets for deficit reduction and debt sustainability (e.g., the FRBM Act). Cooperative federalism uniquely embodies institutionalized consensus-building and collaborative decision-making between the Union and States.

In India, the outcomes of cooperative federalism present a mixed record. Institutional shifts include the replacement of the Planning Commission with NITI Aayog, the 15th Finance Commission maintaining a high tax devolution of 41%, retained by the 16th Finance Commission (chaired by Arvind Panagariya) for 2026-31, which also added a 10% weight for States' contribution to GDP, ended revenue-deficit and sector-specific grants, and recommended a fiscal deficit of 3.5% for the Centre by 2030-31 and 3% for States, and the creation of the GST Council as a constitutional joint decision-making body (Article 279A). Key successes include the historic implementation of the nationwide GST regime and unified crisis management during the COVID-19 pandemic under the Disaster Management Act.

However, structural limitations persist. The proliferation of tied Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) imposes rigid conditionalities on state priorities. The Union’s increasing reliance on cesses and surcharges shrinks the net divisible tax pool, while extensive resort to Article 282 for discretionary grants bypasses statutory Finance Commission channels. Furthermore, past frictions over delayed GST compensation cess payments and curbs on state off-budget borrowings demonstrate that cooperative federalism remains constrained by central dominance.

(b) Changing Role of Women in Agriculture Post-Liberalisation

Post-1991 economic reforms transformed the agrarian economy, transitioning women’s roles from subsistence unpaid family labor to complex, casualized participation. Male distress out-migration to urban informal sectors catalyzed a "feminization of farm management," wherein women increasingly manage operational holdings despite lacking formal land titles, institutional credit, and extension access. Workforce data show two phases. NSSO surveys recorded a fall in rural women's participation from 2004-05 to 2017-18, but the Periodic Labour Force Survey shows a sharp rise since then (female labour force participation rose from about 23% in 2017-18 to about 42% in 2023-24), mostly as self-employed and unpaid helpers in farming and allied work. About three-quarters of rural women workers are in agriculture, yet women hold only about 14% of operational holdings (Agriculture Census 2015-16).

Macroeconomic structural adjustments also impacted female labor negatively through reduced public agricultural investment and land acquisitions for Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which displaced female agricultural laborers. On the other hand, commercialization expanded female engagement in non-crop allied sectors, particularly livestock, dairy, and poultry farming. Women have also integrated into newer supply chains through contract farming, export agro-processing units, and women-led Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) mobilized under the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-NRLM, the Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana, Lakhpati Didi and Namo Drone Didi. Thus women's role in agriculture has widened, but recognition as farmers, land rights and access to credit and extension still lag behind.

(c) Rural Poverty: Estimates and Mitigation Measures

Rural poverty estimation methodologies have transitioned from expenditure thresholds to multidimensional deprivations:

• Tendulkar Committee (2009): Moved away from calorie norms to a uniform poverty line basket (PLB) incorporating health and education expenditures using the Mixed Reference Period (MRP), estimating rural poverty at 41.8% in 2004-05 and 25.7% in 2011-12. Earlier, the Lakdawala method anchored the line to calorie norms (2,400 kcal rural).
• Rangarajan Committee (2014): Recalibrated poverty lines using separate nutrient norms and essential non-food expenses via the Modified Mixed Reference Period (MMRP), determining rural poverty at a higher 30.9% for 2011-12.
• NITI Aayog National Multidimensional Poverty Index (Progress Review 2023): Utilizing the Alkire-Foster method across 12 indicators spanning health, education, and living standards, the MPI demonstrated a decline in multidimensional rural poverty from 32.59% (NFHS-4) to 19.28% (NFHS-5).
• Recent consumption-based estimates: There has been no official poverty line since 2011-12, but World Bank estimates using the Household Consumption Expenditure Survey 2022-23 put extreme poverty in India at a few per cent, with rural poverty well below the 2011-12 levels.

Government anti-poverty interventions deploy a lifecycle social-safety approach:

• Livelihood and Income: Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA, now succeeded by the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025, with 125 days) provides guaranteed wage employment; DAY-NRLM builds self-help groups and livelihoods; PM-KISAN offers direct income support to landholding farmers.
• Basic Needs and Health: National Food Security Act (NFSA) ensures subsidized grain entitlements; Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin delivers pucca housing; Ayushman Bharat (PM-JAY) provides catastrophic health risk protection.
• Community-led Models: Sub-national innovations like Kerala’s Kudumbashree showcase poverty eradication through women-led micro-enterprises and local governance.