LegislationFinancing urban developmentPrachee Mishra- June 30, 2017India’s urban population has grown by 32% from 2001 to 2011 as compared to 18% growth in total population of the country.[1]As per Census 2011, 31% of the country’s population (377 million people) live in cities, and contribute to 63% of the country’s GDP.[2]The urban population is projected to grow up to 600 million by 2031.2With increasing urban population, the need for providing better infrastructure and services in cities is increasing.[3]The government has introduced several schemes to address different urban issues.  These include the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Smart Cities Mission, Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana – Housing for All (Urban) (PMAY-U), and Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban).Last week the Ministry of Urban Development released the next batch of winners under the Smart Cities Mission.[4]This takes the number of smart cities to 90.  The government has also announced a few policies and released data indicators to help with the implementation of the urban schemes.  In light of all this, we discuss how the new schemes are changing the mandate of urban development, the fiscal challenge of implementing such schemes, and the policies that are trying to address some of these challenges.Urbanisation in IndiaThe Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM), launched in 2005, was one of the first urban development schemes implemented by the central government.  Under JnNURM, the central government specified certain mandatory and optional reforms for cities, and provided assistance to the state governments and cities that were linked to the implementation of these reforms.  JnNURM focused on improving urban infrastructure and service delivery, community participation, and accountability of city governments towards citizens.In comparison, the new urban schemes move beyond the mandate that was set by JnNURM.  While AMRUT captures most of the objectives under JnNURM, the other schemes seek to address issues around sanitation (through Swachh Bharat), affordable housing (through PMAY-U), and technology innovation (through Smart Cities).  Further, the new schemes seek to decentralize the planning process to the city and state level, by giving them more decision making powers.2So, while earlier, majority of the funding came from the central and state governments, now, a significant share of the funding needs to be raised by the cities themselves.For example, under the Smart Cities Mission, the total cost of projects proposed by the 60 smart cities (winners from the earlier rounds) is Rs 1.3 lakh crore.[5]About 42% of this amount will come from central and state funding towards the Mission, and the rest will be raised by the cities.[6]The new schemes suggest that cities may raise these funds through: (i) their own resources such as collection of user fees, land monetization, property taxes, etc., (ii) finance mechanisms such as municipal bonds, (iii) leveraging borrowings from financial institutions, and (iv) the private sector through Public Private Partnerships (PPPs).[7]In 2011, an Expert Committee on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services (HPEC) had projected that creation of the required urban infrastructure would translate into an investment of Rs 97,500 crore to Rs 1,95,000 crore annually.[8]The current urban schemes are investing around Rs 32,500 crore annually.Financial capacity of citiesCurrently, the different sources of revenue that municipal corporations have access to include: (i) tax revenue (property tax, tax on electricity, toll tax, entertainment tax), (ii) non-tax revenue (user charges, building permission fees, sale and hire charges), (iii) grants-in-aid (from state and central governments), and (iv) debt (loans borrowed from financial institutions and banks, and municipal bonds).While cities are now required to raise more financing for urban projects, they do not have the required fiscal and technical capacity.8,[9]The HPEC had observed that cities in India are among the weakest in the world, both in terms of capacity to raise resources and financial autonomy.  Even though cities have been getting higher allocations from the centre and states, their own tax bases are narrow.8Further, several taxes that cities can levy are still mandated by the state government.  Because of their poor governance and financial situation, cities also find it difficult to access external financing.8,7In order to help cities improve their finances, the government has introduced a few policies, and released a few indicators.  Some of these are discussed below:Policy proposals and data indicatorsValue Capture Financing (VCF):The VCF policy framework was introduced by the Ministry of Urban Development in February 2017.[10]VCF is a principle that states that people benefiting from public investments in infrastructure should pay for it.  Currently when governments invest in roads, airports and industries in an area, private property owners in that area benefit from it.  However, governments recover only a limited value from such investments, constraining their ability to make further public investments elsewhere.  VCF helps in capturing a part of the increment in the value of land due to such investments, and use it to fund new infrastructure projects.The different instruments of VCF include: land value tax, fee for changing land use, betterment levy, development charges, transfer of development rights, and land pooling systems.10For example, Karnataka uses certain value capture methods to fund its mass transit projects.  The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA), and City and Industrial Development Corporation Limited (CIDCO) have used betterment levy (tax levied on land that has gained in value because of public infrastructure investments) to finance infrastructure projects.Municipal bonds:Municipal bonds are bonds issued by urban local bodies (municipal corporations or entities owned by municipal bodies) to raise money for financing specific projects such as infrastructure projects.  The Securities and Exchange Board of India regulations (2015) regarding municipal bonds provide that, to issue such bonds, municipalities must: (i) not have negative net worth in any of the three preceding financial years, and (ii) not have defaulted in any loan repayments in the last one year.[11]Therefore, a city’s performance in the bond market depends on its fiscal performance.  One of the ways to determine a city’s financial health is through credit ratings.Credit rating of cities:In September 2016, the Ministry of Urban Development started assigning cities with credit ratings.[12]These credit ratings were assigned based on assets and liabilities of the cities, revenue streams, resources available for capital investments, accounting practices, and other governance practices.Of the total 20 ratings ranging from AAA to D, BBB–is the ‘Investment Grade’ rating and cities rated below BBB–need to undertake necessary interventions to improve their ratings for obtaining positive response to the Municipal Bonds to be issued.  By March 2017, 94 cities were assigned credit ratings, 55 of which got ‘investment grade’ ratings.[13]Credit ratings indicate what projects might be more lucrative for investments.  This, in turn, helps investors decide where to invest and determine the terms of such investments (based on the expected returns).Earlier this month, the Pune Municipal Corporation raised Rs 200 crore through the sale of municipal bonds, to finance water supply projects under the Smart Cities Mission.[14]The city had received an AA+ credit rating (second highest rating) in the recent credit rankings assigned by the central government.Other than credit ratings, the Ministry of Urban Development has also come up with other data indicators around cities such as the Swachh Bharat rankings, and the City Liveability Index (measuring mobility, access to healthcare and education, employment opportunities, etc).  These rankings seek to foster a sense of competition across cities, and also help them map their performances year on year.Some financing mechanisms, such as municipal bonds, have been around in India for the last two decades, but cities haven’t been able to make much use of them.  It remains to be seen whether the introduction of indicators such as credit ratings helps the municipal bond market take off.  While these mechanisms may improve the finances of cities, the question is would more funding solve the cities’ problems.  Or would it require municipal government to take a different approach to problem solving.[1]Census of India, 2011.[2]Mission Statement and Guidelines, Smart Cities, Ministry of Urban Development, June 2015,http://smartcities.gov.in/writereaddata/SmartCityGuidelines.pdf.[3]Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services, March, 2011, The High Powered Expert Committee for estimating the investment requirements for urban infrastructure services,http://icrier.org/pdf/FinalReport-hpec.pdf.[4]“30 more smart cities announced; takes the total to 90 so far”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Urban Development, June 23, 2017.[5]Smart Cities Mission, Ministry of Urban Development, last accessed on June 30, 2017,http://smartcities.gov.in/content/.[6]Smart City Plans, Last accessed in June 2017.[7]“Financing of Smart Cities”, Smart Cities Mission, Ministry of Urban Development,http://smartcities.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/Financing%20of%20Smart%20Cities.pdf.[8]“Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and Services”, March, 2011, The High Powered Expert Committee for estimating the investment requirements for urban infrastructure services,http://icrier.org/pdf/FinalReport-hpec.pdf.[9]Fourteenth Finance Commission, Ministry of Finance, February 2015,http://finmin.nic.in/14fincomm/14fcrengVol1.pdf.[10]Value Capture Finance Policy Framework, Ministry of Urban Development, February 2017,http://smartcities.gov.in/upload/5901982d9e461VCFPolicyFrameworkFINAL.pdf.[11]Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities by Municipalities) Regulations, 2015, Securities and Exchange Board of India, July 15, 2015,http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachdocs/1436964571729.pdf.[12]“Credit rating of cities under urban reforms begins”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Urban Development, September 6, 2016.[13]“Credit Rating of Urban Local Bodies gain Momentum”, Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Urban Development, March 26, 2017.[14]“Pune civic body raises Rs200 crore via municipal bonds”, LiveMint, June 19, 2017,http://www.livemint.com/Money/JOOzaSTKnC6k1EZGeFh8LJ/Pune-civic-body-raises-Rs200-crore-via-municipal-bonds.html.ParliamentFirst no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha discussed todayNiranjana Menon- August 8, 2023Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17thLok Sabha began today.  No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power.  Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha.  This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha.  Trust votes are used to examine this support.  The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have beendiscussed.  Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced.  The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.Figure1: Trust votes in ParliamentNote: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.The no-confidence motion being discussed today wasmovedon July 26, 2023.  A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members.   The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion.  TheRules of Procedurestate that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced.  This year, the no-confidence motion wasdiscussed13 calendar days after introduction.  Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha.  In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction.  On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.Figure2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok SabhaSource: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.Figure3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: Number of days implies calendar days.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days.  Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003.  Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by theBusiness Advisory Committee.Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote.  26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected.  This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence.   On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive.  He resigned before the motion was put to vote.  50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975.  Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.Figure4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motionsNote: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history.  The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all.  The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place.  Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s.  During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority throughconfidence motions.   These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.Figure5: Duration of discussion of confidence motionsSource: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted.  On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority.  On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote.  Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House.  He resigned 16 days into his term.Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion.   This time, it was put to vote.   The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote.  This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha.  The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993.  In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.«12345678910»
LegislationFinancing urban developmentPrachee Mishra- June 30, 2017