DOCSLIB.ORG

Fiscal Federalism in the Big Developing Countries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fiscal Federalism in the Big Developing Countries View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Papers in Economics Dipartimento di Politiche Pubbliche e Scelte Collettive – POLIS Department of Public Policy and Public Choice – POLIS Working paper n. 66 January 2006 Fiscal federalism in big developing countries: China and India Angela Fraschini UNIVERSITA’ DEL PIEMONTE ORIENTALE “Amedeo Avogadro” ALESSANDRIA FISCAL FEDERALISM IN BIG DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: CHINA AND INDIA Angela Fraschini University of Eastern Piedmont - Italy Abstract In South and East Asian countries a highly centralized government prevails, although recently some trends are moving toward a greater degree of decentralization. Also the two giants China and India, which cannot rely on a merely centralized Government, have experienced a greater or lesser degree of fiscal unionism. As to China the local government system provides four levels: provincial level; city level; county level; township level. Intergovernmental fiscal relations were revamped by the 1994 reform that established a new tax sharing system and gave local governments more control over the administration of local taxes but no significant degree of tax autonomy and no substantial expenditure assignments. The local financial revenue mainly derives from local taxes, shared taxes, and non- tax revenue. As to India, the federal system is quite complex. The center-states relations are envisaged in the Constitution also for the financial aspects: two constitutional amendments adopted in 1992 made India one of the most politically decentralized countries among developing ones. However, the implementation of the decentralization program is still lagging: till now India seems to have considered decentralization mainly in terms of the local election system, without the transfer of all functions provided for devolution to local bodies. Only India set up a different system of local bodies in rural and urban areas with different expenditure responsibilities and financing powers. On the contrary, China has a unitary fiscal system. In India it is necessary to redesign the transfer system to improve accountability, incentives and equity, whereas in China, the fiscal revenue sharing schemes limit intergovernmental budget transfers. Finally, the rule of hard budget constraint in China is faced by all levels of government, while in India sub-national governments face soft budget constraint. JEL Classification numbers: H11, H71, H77 Key words: State and Local Governments, Intergovernmental Relations, Asia, China, India E-mail Address: [email protected] Tel +39-0131-283711 – Fax. *3704 1. Introduction China and India are the two biggest developing countries in South-East Asia. Although different as to their historical, institutional and cultural developments, these enormous countries cannot rely on a merely centralized Government, due to the extension and the striking existing differences among their regions, more than once populated by some hundred million people. Therefore, both the countries share a greater or lesser degree of fiscal federalism or, better, of fiscal unionism. We compare the different institutional arrangements of fiscal decentralization in China and in India, focusing on the financing (own resources, share to central taxes, grants, equalization systems) of sub-national layers. The two countries have different typology of decentralization. As to China the local government system provides four levels: provincial level, which is the highest local level and includes provincial, autonomous regions and municipal governments; city level, which includes cities under the jurisdiction of the provinces, autonomous prefectures and districts under the jurisdiction of municipal governments; county level, which includes autonomous counties, counties and towns; township level, which is the lowest level and includes towns and villages. Intergovernmental fiscal relations were revamped by the 1994 reform that established a new tax sharing system that fundamentally changed the apportionment of tax revenue between the central and provincial governments. The local financial revenue mainly derives from local taxes (such as business tax, personal income tax, tax on the use of urban land, tax on real estates, tax on agriculture and special agriculture products, etc.), shared taxes (value added tax, stamp tax and tax on resources other than the ocean petroleum resources) and non-tax revenue (fees, penalties, subsidies, other income, etc.). Notwithstanding the reforms, the fiscal system is still unitary. Nevertheless, local government is increasingly playing a part in local economic development and some local governments are beginning to exercise influence on central government. As to India, the federal system is quite complex, as a consequence of regional disparities and of both vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalances. The center-states relations are envisaged in the Constitution also for the financial aspects and the assignment of tax power is based on the principle of separation. Local governments have different institutional arrangements in rural and urban area, in accordance with the two 1992 constitutional amendments that made India one of the most politically decentralized countries among developing ones. However, in practice the implementation of the decentralization program is still lagging, especially in rural areas. Major taxes levied by urban local bodies, which have greater tax power than the rural ones, are tax on property including service levy for water supply, conservancy, drainage, lighting and garbage disposal; tax on entry of goods into a local area for consumption use of sale therein, known as octroi; tax on professions; tax on vehicles (other than motor vehicles). 1 Finally, in the last section we conclude by comparing fiscal federalism arrangements prevailing in these so big and still developing countries with the rules that should be followed to implement fiscal decentralization. 2. A short synopsis of administrative divisions and taxes by level of government Shortly speaking, the governmental systems that characterize the two countries are quite different: China is a communist state that is increasingly opening to areas of free-market, India is a federal democratic republic. Nevertheless, the countries have different levels of government and administrative divisions, as shown in Table 1. 3. China and India: a comparison China and India are the world’s two largest nations1 and, from an historical point of view, there are a number of similarities between the two countries: ancient civilizations that were, at one time, the richest in the world, declining in the second half of the second millennium and starting their way to modernity in the middle of the last century. Moreover, many general similarities existed between the economies of China and India at the time the Communists assumed power in China in 1949 and India achieved its independence in 1947. Until the 1980s of the last century the economic performance of China and India was not much different (also per capita GDP was similar) and both the countries experienced economic reforms that led to a growth’s acceleration. In particular, during the period 1952-80 the two countries grew at about the same GDP rate because the slow growth of the Chinese agriculture and service sectors smoothed its fast growing industrial sector. Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, in 1980 China initiated economic reforms, a decade earlier than India, and as a consequence its economy grew at double the rate of growth of India during the 1980s and the early 1990s. Thus since few years there is a growing gap between the performance of the two giant countries and in 2003 the per capita GDP2 was estimated to be $ 5,000 in China and $ 2,900 in India (see CIA, The World Factbook). This result is not only imputable to a 1 According to the estimated data of The World Factbook, on July 2004 the population of China was around 1,299 million and that of India was around 1,065 million. 2 GDP on a purchasing power parity basis divided by population as of 1 July for the same year. 2 faster GDP growth, but also to a lower population increase, thanks to the one-child policy implemented in China. For a short comparison of selected items see Table 2. Moreover, the two countries have a different government type though both have a multi-level government. China is a “socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants” (art. 1 of the Chinese Constitution). According to article 30 of the Chinese Constitution, the administrative division of the People's Republic of China is as follows: a) the country is divided into provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the central government (these latter and other large cities are divided into districts and counties); b) provinces and autonomous regions are divided into autonomous prefectures,3 counties, autonomous counties and cities; c) counties and autonomous counties are divided into townships, nationality townships, and towns. The state may establish special administrative regions when necessary. As shown in Table 1, currently China has 23 provinces (considering Taiwan the 23rd), five autonomous regions and four municipalities, while Macau and Hong Kong are special administrative regions.4 Then the modern Chinese system5 includes a share of authority between the central and local governments, providing a partial basis for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Has Indian Federalism Done?
    Military-Madrasa-MullahAArticle Global Threat Complex 4343 Studies in Indian Politics How has Indian Federalism Done? 1(1) 43–63 © 2013 Lokniti, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC Ashutosh Varshney DOI: 10.1177/2321023013482787 http://inp.sagepub.com Abstract Two tropes have dominated discussions of Indian federalism: fiscal and constitutional. Isolated exceptions aside, scholars have not linked India’s federalism to comparative theories of nationalism, or to a comparative exploration of national identities. To examine how India’s federalism has done, we may also need to ask what kind of nation India is. Once we answer that question, the oft-assumed binary—that the stronger the states are, the weaker the centre will be–loses its edge. Both can be simultaneously strong. The new exception may be the problem of cross-border terrorism, which indeed generates a binary for the new age. Secessionism also creates centre–state binaries, but that may be more on account of how the basic ideational principles of Indian nationhood have been violated, not followed, or about how far the historical process of nation-building penetrated the rebellious regions. Such problems have not been about the basic flaws of Indian federalism. Keywords State–nation, nation–state, multicultural nation, linguistic states, cross-cutting identities, cross-border terrorism This article departs from the conventional work on India’s federalism1. Most traditional scholarship took two forms. The focus was either on what is called fiscal federalism, or on strictly constitutional matters. The literature on fiscal federalism revolved around resource transfers from the centre to the states: its logic, equity and quantum.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Federalism As a Constraint on States
    FISCAL FEDERALISM AS A CONSTRAINT ON STATES CLAYTON P. GILLETTE* Federalism—by which I mean more than federal‐state rela‐ tionships, and in particular mean all relationships between rela‐ tively centralized governments and their relatively decentral‐ ized subdivisions—allows different jurisdictions to compete for residents, both firms and individuals. Those who embrace fed‐ eralism point to the benefits it confers by allowing jurisdictions to vary the bundle of goods and services they offer when the contents of that bundle generate only intrajurisdictional effects. The underlying assumption is that federalism induces subna‐ tional jurisdictions to attract residents by offering a preferred public good at a particular tax price.1 The resulting competition, in theory, has many benefits. It maximizes preference satisfac‐ tion, as individuals migrate to jurisdictions that offer the public goods that they desire. It allows efficient delivery of local public goods as competitive markets for residents both drive down monopoly tax prices that public entities might otherwise be able to demand and provide public officials signals of desired ser‐ vices. It reduces the size of government because the resulting homogeneity (1) reduces the costs of monitoring officials who are charged with providing public goods consistent with resi‐ dents’ preferences and (2) represses logrolling among groups with diverse interests that might otherwise divert public re‐ sources to private use. And it diminishes corruption within government because that same homogeneity causes expendi‐ tures for illicit activity—which almost by definition deviates from majoritarian preferences—to be more salient. * Max E. Greenberg Professor of Contract Law, NYU School of Law. My thanks to the University of Virginia School of Law Chapter of the Federalist Society for inviting me to participate as a panelist in the Thirtieth Annual Federalist Society National Student Symposium.
    [Show full text]
  • India's Parliament and Governing Institutions
    BRIEFING Continental democracies India's parliament and governing institutions SUMMARY India is the biggest democracy in the world. With a population of 1.35 billion in 2018, India was also the world's second most populous country, and is projected to overtake China by 2027. Like the European Union (EU), it is a pluralistic, multi-faith, multilingual (with 22 recognised languages), and multi-ethnic country. Secularism has been enshrined in the Constitution. India's 1950 Constitution provides for a quasi-federal setup: powers are separated between the central union and the 28 state governments. Competences are allocated according to administrative level, between the Union, states or 'concurrently'. The prime minister possesses the country's effective executive power. As 'Leader of the House' in the lower chamber, the prime minister also holds decisive power in deciding the House's agenda. However, the real power of initiating legislation belongs to the government, and the Parliament has no say on foreign affairs. India's Parliament is bicameral: it includes the Lok Sabha – the lower house – and the Rajya Sabha – the upper house. The two houses are equal, but the Lok Sabha dominates in deciding certain financial matters and on the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers. General elections take place for Lok Sabha members every five years. The last elections took place in May 2019, when Narendra Modi was re-elected as Prime Minister. The Rajva Sabha is a permanent body consisting of members indirectly elected by the states, and it is not subject to dissolution. India has a common law legal system.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Federalism 151
    Fiscal federalism 151 Fiscal federalism own-source revenues to finance the services logi- cally assigned to them. Richard M. Bird Given the greater interjurisdictional mobility of University of Toronto the base of the income tax relative to that of the con- sumption tax, and of the latter relative to that of the The analysis of the problems that give rise to, property tax (and the efficiency problems arising and arise from, the existence of more than from tax exportation, when not precisely offset by one level of government within the same benefit spillovers), most analysts suggest that the lo- geographical area. cal public sector should be financed basically by user charges and “local” taxes, especially the prop- erty tax, and states by consumption taxes, with the As originally developed by Musgrave (1959) and income tax being left largely to the central (federal) Oates (1972), the “theory of fiscal federalism” con- government (Musgrave 1983). But this division of cerns the division of public-sector functions and fi- revenues means that state and local governments are nances in a logical way among multiple layers of likely to end up with greater expenditure responsi- government (King 1984). Much of the literature of bilities than can be financed from their own reve- fiscal federalism consists of relatively unrelated nues. An important element of fiscal federalism treatments of such issues as the “decentralization from the beginning has thus been recognition of the theorem” (Oates 1991), models for the assignment probable need for intergovernmental grants to close of powers (McLure 1993), discussions of inter- the revenue gap.
    [Show full text]
  • FEDERAL SYSTEM a Federal Government Is One in Which Powers Are Divided Between the National Government and the Regional Governments by the Constitution Itself
    FEDERAL SYSTEM A federal government is one in which powers are divided between the national government and the regional governments by the Constitution itself. Ex. US, Switzerland, Australia,Canada and Russia. If all the powers are vested in the national government then it is called as Unitary government. Ex. Britain, France, Japan, China and Sweden. The term ‘federation’ is derived from a Latin word foedus which means ‘treaty’ or ‘agreement’. Federation is a new state (political system) which is formed through a treaty or an agreement between the various units. The units of a federation are known by various names like states (as in US) or cantons (as in Switzerland) or provinces (as in Canada) or republics (as in Russia). A federation can be formed in two ways Integration a number of militarily weak or economically backward states(independent) come together to form a big and a strong union. Disintegration A big unitary state is converted into a federation by granting autonomy to the provinces to promote regional interest.ex. Canada. Federalism in India India adopted federal system due to two main reasons i) The large size of the country and ii) The socio-cultural diversity. The term ‘federation’ has nowhere been used in the Constitution. Instead, Article 1 of the Constitution describes India as a ‘Union of States’. India is a federal system but with more tilt towards a unitary system of government. It is sometimes considered a quasi-federal system. Elements of federalism were introduced into modern India by the Government of India act of 1919 which separated powers between the centre and the provincial legislatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Austrian Federalism in Comparative Perspective
    CONTEMPORARY AUSTRIAN STUDIES | VOLUME 24 Bischof, Karlhofer (Eds.), Williamson (Guest Ed.) • 1914: Aus tria-Hungary, the Origins, and the First Year of World War I War of World the Origins, and First Year tria-Hungary, Austrian Federalism in Comparative Perspective Günter Bischof AustrianFerdinand Federalism Karlhofer (Eds.) in Comparative Perspective Günter Bischof, Ferdinand Karlhofer (Eds.) UNO UNO PRESS innsbruck university press UNO PRESS innsbruck university press Austrian Federalism in ŽŵƉĂƌĂƟǀĞWĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ Günter Bischof, Ferdinand Karlhofer (Eds.) CONTEMPORARY AUSTRIAN STUDIES | VOLUME 24 UNO PRESS innsbruck university press Copyright © 2015 by University of New Orleans Press All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage nd retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. All inquiries should be addressed to UNO Press, University of New Orleans, LA 138, 2000 Lakeshore Drive. New Orleans, LA, 70148, USA. www.unopress.org. Printed in the United States of America Book design by Allison Reu and Alex Dimeff Cover photo © Parlamentsdirektion Published in the United States by Published and distributed in Europe University of New Orleans Press by Innsbruck University Press ISBN: 9781608011124 ISBN: 9783902936691 UNO PRESS Publication of this volume has been made possible through generous grants from the the Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration, and Foreign Affairs in Vienna through the Austrian Cultural Forum in New York, as well as the Federal Ministry of Economics, Science, and Research through the Austrian Academic Exchange Service (ÖAAD). The Austrian Marshall Plan Anniversary Foundation in Vienna has been very generous in supporting Center Austria: The Austrian Marshall Plan Center for European Studies at the University of New Orleans and its publications series.
    [Show full text]
  • A Forum of Federations Perspective
    Federal Governance 2019, 15(02): pp. 33-35. 33 Relevance of the Federal Idea: A Forum of Federations Perspective Rupak Chattopadhyay1 Rupak Chattopadhyay is the President and CEO of the Forum of Federations whose mission is to strengthen inclusive and responsive governance in federal, decentralized and transitioning countries. The Forum of Federations is the sponsor of this journal. When the decision to establish the Forum of in all of these countries what matters is that Federations was made in 1999, founder Canada had constitutional arrangements have certain clearly just survived a major existential crisis. In 1995, the identifiable features. second referendum on Quebec independence Current Context almost lead to the breakup of the country. Therefore, the contribution that federalism (or more accurately, The last twenty years have coincided with a the federal idea or federal spirit) can make to national resurgence of the federal idea mainly due to the unity and democratic consolidation has been at the revolutions in the politics of identity and human heart of the organization’s work since its founding. I rights, the impact of the technological revolution, and prefer the term federal idea rather than federalism the socio-economic changes we associate with because there is no one correct way to be federal. globalization. More countries are either looking at Each federation is unique; a product of its own social federalism or borrowing from the federalism toolkit to and historical realities. Some federations have restructure the state – such as Iraq, Kenya, parliamentary systems (Belgium), others are Myanmar, Nepal, Spain, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and presidential (Brazil), some are large (India), others the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Approaches to a Fiscal Theory of Political Federalism
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Public Finances: Needs, Sources, and Utilization Volume Author/Editor: Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research Volume Publisher: Princeton University Press Volume ISBN: 0-87014-303-4 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/univ61-1 Publication Date: 1961 Chapter Title: Approaches to a Fiscal Theory of Political Federalism Chapter Author: Richard A. Musgrave Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2274 Chapter pages in book: (p. 97 - 134) Approaches to A Fiscal Theory of Political Federalism RICHARD A. MUSGRAVE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN THE preceding paper deals with the fiscal structure of a community as determined by considerations of economic efficiency.' These considerations demanded central provision for services the benefits of which accrue equally throughout the federation, while leaving the supply of other services to various regional units of government. This study is concerned with a quite different approach, where the role of the central fisc is not limited to considerations of efficiency, but set by the very objectives of political federalism. When inde- pendent states join in a federation, they may do so to develop a common foreign defense, or establish a customs union, or they may wish to pursue certain objectives which require central government interference in the finances of the member states.2 It is this inter- ference which is the subject of this paper. Central interference in state finances may be based on various objectives. One set of objectives relates the central fisc to the groups of individuals comprising the various states.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Federalism in Indian Constitution
    Cooperative Federalism In Indian Constitution Brickle Alden descry very matrimonially while Barty remains piscicultural and seasonable. Zoonal Fonzie king-hitgarroting stand-by illustratively too once? or recolonise marginally when Benton is dank. Daffy remains louche: she belly-flops her Council has the pandemic on in constitution makers of types of european summit is not One in cooperative federalism is not to constitutional right to your bookmarks section was legal obligation of federations often commenced. Cooperative Federalism Although the Constitution of India has nowhere used the term 'federal' it soon provided type a structure of governance. One month relaxation in jharkhand, the same coin as infrastructure investment, the bill does not from borrowing limits except for cooperative federalism in indian constitution. Union saying the states are constitutionally obliged to cooperate with hope other around the matters specified in Schedule VII of the constitution In. Constitutional Reflections on the Pandemic. The cooperative federalism policy reforms. Federal constitution is federal prescriptions that cooperation and challenges facing a fundamental principles that it is an immunity from. As partners in rajya sabha member of this academy for those fiscal management act is significantly different states upon any commitment. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. Hughes was then Governor of New York. What rationale the principles of federalism? Each division has had separate capability. States are increasingly harbouring feelings of deprivation and alienation and have begun viewing all problems from several narrow parochial outlook. COVID-19 as a Test of Narendra Modi's Promise like The Wire. Cooperative Federalism ISCS.
    [Show full text]
  • Gendering Federalism in India
    Occasional Paper Series Number 21 Gendering Federalism in India Rekha Saxena The Forum of Federations, the global network on federalism and multi-level governance, supports better governance through learning among practitioners and experts. Active on six continents, it runs pro- grams in over 20 countries including established federations, as well as countries transitioning to devolved and decentralized governance options. The Forum publishes a range of information and edu- cational materials. It is supported by the following partner countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan and Swit- zerland. Gendering Federalism in India Rekha Saxena © Forum of Federations, 2017 ISSN: 1922-558X (online ISSM 1922-5598) Occasional Paper Series Number 21 Gendering Federalism in India By: Rekha Saxena For more information about the Forum of Federations and its publications, please visit our website: www.forumfed.org. Forum of Federations 75 Albert Street, Suite 411 Ottawa, Ontario (Canada) K1P 5E7 Tel: (613) 244-3360 Fax: (613) 244-3372 [email protected] Gendering Federalism in India 1 Gendering Federalism in India Rekha Saxena ( Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Honorary vice-chairperson, Centre for Multilevel Federalism, New Delhi and Hon. Senior Advisor, Forum of Federations, Ottawa) Abstract ; This paper seeks to explore the gendered impact of Indian federal structure. Different aspects of federalism such as intergovernmental relations, asymmetrical relations, and multi-level federalism and its impact on the way women’s movement engage with the state structure are discussed. The impact of three-tier federal struc- ture is visible in the presence of women’s organizations at all the three levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton's Paradox
    Hamilton’s Paradox: The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism Jonathan Rodden MIT Final Draft February 4, 2005 Dedication Preface Acknowledgments Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview Chapter 2 Promise and Peril: Intellectual History Chapter 3 Sovereignty and Commitment Chapter 4 The Power of the Purse: Intergovernmental Grants and Fiscal Discipline Chapter 5 Disease or Cure? Political Parties and Fiscal Discipline Chapter 6 An Approach to Comparative Case Studies Chapter 7 Fiscal Federalism and Bailouts in Postwar Germany Chapter 8 The Crisis of Fiscal Federalism in Brazil Chapter 9 The Challenge of Reform in Federations Chapter 10 The Origins of Subnational Sovereignty Chapter 11 Conclusions References Appendices (arranged by chapter) Figures and Charts (arranged by chapter) Index i For Ammie ii Preface This project started in the late 1990s with the simple observation that however compelling and elegant, leading theories of federalism in economics and political science had little to do with most of what was interesting about developments in federations around the world. Optimistic theories promised that decentralization would yield improved efficiency and governance in a wide variety of countries. Yet disastrous debt accumulation among state and provincial governments in Brazil and Argentina had direct negative implications for macroeconomic and political stability, and the literature seemed to provide no hint of an explanation. Moreover, similar problems have existed on a smaller scale for some time in several countries, and are sprouting up along with transitions to democracy and fiscal decentralization in others. Next I learned that episodes of unsustainable borrowing by states and provinces, followed by rancorous debates about federal bailouts, are as old as federalism itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism in Indian Constitution
    International Journal of Academic Research and Development International Journal of Academic Research and Development ISSN: 2455-4197 Impact Factor: RJIF 5.22 www.academicsjournal.com Volume 3; Issue 2; March 2018; Page No. 901-902 Federalism in Indian constitution Santosh Kumar Pandey Ll.M. B.H.U. Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India Abstract Federalism constitutes a complex governmental mechanism for governance of a country. It has been evolved to bind into one political union several autonomous, distinct, separate and disparate political entities or administrative units. It seeks to draw a balance between the forces working in the favour of concentration of power in the centre and those urging a dispersal of it in a number of units.it thus seek to reconcile unity with multiplicity, centralization with decentralization and nationalism with localism. By this paper. I have enquire the true nature of Indian constitution and relevancy of federalism in Indian. Keywords: federal, government, political entities, concentration of power, reconcile, multiplicity, decentralization, nationalism, localism Introduction cooperative federation. According to prof. G.P. Verma Indian Federal system constitution is federal in toto. Federal system is a form of government in which the Prior to the formation of the Constituent Assembly, the sovereign authority of political power is divided between Cabinet Plan emphasized on a Central Government with very various units’ viz. centre, states, municipalities etc. The limited powers to be con ned to foreign affairs, defense an federal state is a political convenience intended to reconcile Communication. In contrast, the Muslim League and the national unity and integrity and power with maintenance of Indian National Congress did not agree to this.
    [Show full text]