EVALUATION OF PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF RURAL WATER SUPPLY SECTOR IN MADHYA ... · 2017. 11. 3. · SUPPLY SECTOR IN MADHYA PRADESH Saifullah Khan SSL Jain PG College Vidisha/Barkatullah

ELK ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

ISSN 2394-9392 (Online); DOI: 10.16962/EAPJSS/issn. 2394-9392 /2015; Volume 4 Issue 1 (2017)

www.elkjournals.com

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

EVALUATION OF PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF RURAL WATER

SUPPLY SECTOR IN MADHYA PRADESH

Saifullah Khan

SSL Jain PG College Vidisha/Barkatullah University,

Bhopal, MP, India.

[email protected]

09893788244

ABSTRACT

The paper studies the physical and financial progress of rural water supply sector in MP (Madhya Pradesh) from

2007-08 to 2016-17. Study is using four ways of examination, (i) to understand physical situation of the state using

census 2011 and NRDWP (National Rural Drinking Water Programme) data, (ii) to look at rural water supply

expenditure as a proportion of total water supply expenditure, total state expenditure and GSDP (Gross State

Domestic Product), (iii) to look at per capita rural water supply expenditure (iv) is the utilization of the funds in the

rural water supply sector. According to census of 2011 situation of rural households in MP was much poorer than all

India average in context of treated tap water supply, distance travelled for fetching water and household coverage

with safe drinking water, but in NRDWP data of 2016-17, MP is looking drastically improved and is in better position

than India’s average. Such an improvement in household coverage can only be achieved by good investment in the

sector. But the analysis of MP rural water supply expenditure is presenting an extremely different site where the state

government is reducing its expenditure in rural water supply sector in comparison with all other sectors, despite the

fact that NRDWP data of coverage is showing drastic improvements in MP. Share of rural water supply expenditure

is continuously impending down in total water supply expenditure, total state expenditure and GSDP. Per capita

expenditure of total water supply and rural water supply was Rs 131 and Rs 123 respectively in 2007-08 but till 2016-

17 total water supply has been increased to Rs 261 but per capita expenditure of rural water supply was just Rs 190.

The under spending was the steady problem in the study period, the analysis shows that variance of actual expenditure

to the budgeted amount in total state expenditure is small, but when we go deep into the rural water supply under

spending is increasing. The available data also indicates that state’s expenditure on social sector has steadily

increased over the years mainly from 2015-16 when state got increased untied fund from the union government due

to the implementation of the 14th finance commission’s recommendations, however these improved funds transferred

into the housing and urban development, and the important sector like rural water supply could not be benefitted.

Keywords: Rural Water Supply, GSDP, NRDWP, Per Capita Expenditure, Under Spending, Madhya Pradesh.

http://dx.doi.org/10.16962/EAPJSS/issn.2394-9392/2014

http://www.elkjournals.com/



………………………………………………………………………………………………………

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations considers universal

access to clean water, a basic human right,

and an essential step towards improving

living standards worldwide. Water supply is

the ingredient of a healthy and productive life

and it is a tool for improvement of the quality

of life and enhancement of productive

efficiency of the people. For the poor people

residing in rural areas, to achieve a better

economic growth rate and higher

productivity, priority has to be given to the

health of these people, for which provision of

public utilities like clean drinking water

supply is necessary. The greater thrust given

to water and sanitation due to international

stress, in the form of meeting the targets of

the Millennium Development Goals and now

Sustainable Development Goals1 has guided

to a largely focus on the sector. The new 2030

agenda for Sustainable Development,

adopted by countries in September 2015, has

water and sanitation at its center, with a

dedicated Goal six on water and sanitation

and apparent association with other goals.

For this plenty and proper provisioning of

budgets would be required to ensure

achievement of Goal six of the SDGs. The

rural drinking water supply is extremely

significant issue in the present times in the

light of the increasing health awareness

among the rural public. One of the most

important objectives of the state government

is to provide safe drinking water to the rural

population. Provision of safe drinking water

is a state subject and is the primary

responsibility of the states. So the paper is

concentrated on the MP state budgets to be

acquainted with rural water supply

expenditure development in the state during

last 10 years.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this paper are: (1) to find

out the physical scenario of rural water

supply in context of habitation coverage,

treated tap water supply and distance covered

in fetching water by census 2011 data and the

recent situation of the state in habitation

coverage from NRDWP data in comparison

with all India average (2) to examine the

share of rural water supply expenditure in

total water supply expenditure, total state

expenditure and GSDP (3) to find out the per

capita expenditure in rural and total water

supply (4) to find out the variance of budget

estimates and actual expenditure in rural

water supply expenditure in the state




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

DATA SOURCE AND

METHODOLOGY

For the present study data have been

collected from state budget books (Volume 1

and Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18) of MP

and the GSDP (at Current Price) from 2007-

08 to 2015-16 taken from CSO (Central

Statistics Office), 2007-08 to 2010-11 (2004-

05 series), 2011-12 to 2015-16 (2011-12

series) and for the year 2016-17 GSDP taken

from MP budget at glance. Variables taken

under the present study are habitation

coverage, rural water supply expenditure, and

total water supply expenditure, total state

expenditure in MP (Budget Estimates and

Actual), GSDP of MP and Per Capita

Expenditure.

PHYSICAL SCENARIO OF RURAL

WATER SUPPLY IN MP

According to 2011 census 85.5 percent

households have access to safe drinking

water (Tap water, hand pump and tube well

were considered as safe sources of drinking

water in the census of India 2011) in India

and in MP it is just 78 percent. In rural India

about 83 percent households have access safe

drinking water but in MP only 73 percent.

According to census 2011 only for 16 percent

households treated tap water is the main

source of drinking water while in India it is

32 percent, and in rural areas this percentage

is 18 percent in India whereas only five

percent households in MP are reached by

treated piped water supplies, the rest are still

living beyond the pipe. (Refer Table 1)

On the basis of ‘distance travelled’ to collect

the water, in rural India only 35 percent had

availability of drinking water within the

premises which was just 13 percent in rural

MP. Availability of drinking water in MP

“away” from the household was 36 percent in

rural MP it was 22 percent in India. In MP

proportion of households that have to fetch

water from a distance exceeding 500 meters,

is more than the India average. They have to

travel a long distance from their households

to get drinking water, the most basic need of

life. On an average about 36 percent rural

households travelling more than half

kilometre for fetching their needed drinking

water. It becomes more critical for state

where girls and women have to do the entire

household duties, look after their children

and collect water for cooking, drinking,

washing and other household chores. A major

proportion of Indian households especially in

rural areas women have to travel a long

distance (beyond 500 meters) to get water for


https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJnJfBqfDVAhXBKo8KHSpWBWAQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mospi.gov.in%2Fcentral-statistics-office-cso-0&usg=AFQjCNF1w8f4UxANrmnGoXE8LFhXTfqs9A

https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJnJfBqfDVAhXBKo8KHSpWBWAQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mospi.gov.in%2Fcentral-statistics-office-cso-0&usg=AFQjCNF1w8f4UxANrmnGoXE8LFhXTfqs9A



………………………………………………………………………………………………………

drinking, cooking and other household

chores2. It was clear from the census data that

MP is not doing well in respect of rural water

supply in comparison with national position.

We hoped that after getting this deteriorating

situation in rural water supply in 2011, MP

would have improved in six years. For

getting latest status of coverage we went

through NRDWP data for the assessment of

physical progress of the MP and India in

respect of the coverage status, particularly the

proportion of fully covered habitations. The

proportion of fully covered habitations is

presented in the following table-2. As can be

seen from the table-2 below state has

registered a good physical progress in terms

of increased level of fully covered

habitations. As per 40 LPCD according to

NRDWP website as on 2016-17, in India

about 76 percent rural habitations were fully

covered and in MP 99.7 percent of rural

habitations were fully covered. As shown in

the table in MP in the year 2009-10 fully

covered habitations were 38.8 percent and

after increasing continuously reached at 65.7

percent in the year 2012-13, but after this

year there was the big jump of about 26

percent points and achieved 91.22 percent in

the year 2013-14 and till 2016-17 fully

covered habitations has been reached at 99.74

percent. But there is a smooth improvement

in the habitation coverage at national level

the fully covered habitations percentage was

stand at 69.3 in the year 2009-10 and reached

at 75.7 percent in the year 2016-17. But it was

amazing to see that MP has increased much

faster. (Refer Table 2)

As per 55 LPCD in India about 45 percent

habitations are fully covered but in MP nearly

79 percent habitations are fully covered. In

both as per 40 LPCD and as per 55 LPCD

coverage of MP is much higher than India.

But according to experts these figures are

misleading simply because coverage refers to

installed capacity, and not average actual

supply over a sustained period or the quality

of water being supplied which is the most

essential part3. (Refer Table 3)

Physical coverage data of NRDWP shows

that after 2012-13 responsive administrative

bodies of MP have improved the profile of

the availability of drinking water especially

at village level in comparison with India. Let

us see what happened in expenditure side due

to which MP has achieved a landmark

progress in last six years.




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

RURAL WATER SUPPLY

EXPENDITURE IN MP

Rural water supply expenditure increased by

about 1.76 times in the last 10 years,

increased from Rs.6040 million in 2007-08 to

Rs 10590 million in 2016-17. Expenditure

increased by Rs 545 million per anum during

2007-08 to 2016-17, with the annual growth

rate of 7.2 percent. (Refer Table 4)

During 2007-08 to 2016-17 annual growth

rate of total state expenditure is 17.9 percent,

social services expenditure is 20.5 percent,

water supply and sanitation is 14.5 percent,

water supply expenditure is 10 percent,

sanitation expenditure is 41.3 percent and

rural water supply expenditure is just 7.2

percent. Growth rate of water supply and

sanitation is lower than the growth rate of

social services and state expenditure. It

means that government has reduced WSS

expenditure in comparison with other sector.

Within WSS government has increased

expenditure on sanitation, while in water

supply expenditure government increased

urban water supply expenditure and

relatively has reduced rural water supply

expenditure. The fiscal year 2015-16 saw a

disruptive change in the centre-state financial

relationship with the government accepting

the fourteenth finance commission’s

recommendation4 of a substantially higher

devolution to States. The recommendations

were designed to enhance the fiscal

autonomy of states by increasing in

devolution from 32 percent to 42 percent, in

which 12 percent increase was in untied

resources. State is now receiving a

significantly larger share of untied funds

from the Union. Our concern following these

changes related to their impact on rural water

supply expenditure. Our analysis finds that

there has been a positive impact on the social

services expenditure in the Madhya Pradesh

as during 2014-15 to 2016-17 significant rise

of 24.4 percent in social services expenditure

and 36.9 percent in water supply and

sanitation that have in fact increased

considerable when compared to the previous

years, but in rural water supply expenditure

growth rate is was just 7 percent during 2014-

15 to 2016-17 that was much low when

compared to the previous years. Due to the

implementation of the 14th finance

commission’s recommendations, improved

funds of social services transferred into the

housing and urban development and the

important sector like rural water supply could

not benefit.




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

As shown in the figure-2, the largest share of

the rural water supply expenditure in total

water supply expenditure was recorded in

2011-12 when it was 73.9 percent, and 2016-

17 was the year in which share of the rural

water supply expenditure in total water

supply expenditure was recorded at its lowest

52.2 percent. (Refer Fig 1)

It is marked from the figure-2 that during

2007-08 to 2016-17 rural water supply share

is decreasing as the trend line is showing

negative slope. Rural water supply share was

stand at 68.1 percent in the year 2007-08 and

reached at 52.2 percent in the year 201-17.

During 2007-08 to 2016-17 share of rural

water supply registered a negative annual

growth rate (-2.57 percent), on an average

during the same time share of rural water

supply came down by 1.5 percent points.

Highlighted drop was found in rural water

supply expenditure share was from 2013-14

to 2014-15 from 72.8 percent share to 55.4

percent, as the result of bringing down capital

expenditure of Rs 1760 million. On an

average during 2007-08 to 2016-17, as

regards expenditure on two components

within water supply, rural water supply is

getting 65 percent, rural water supply is

getting higher share of the expenditure but

less than its population proportion. While the

rural population in MP constitutes about 73

percent of the total population but the rural

water supply is getting only 65 percent share

from the water supply expenditure. (Refer

Fig.3)

The largest share of the rural water supply

spending in total state spending was in 2007-

08 by 1.8 percent, and in 2016-17 share of the

rural water supply into state budget was

recorded at its lowest by 0.68 percent. During

2007-08 to 2016-17 share of rural water

supply in total state spending registered a

negative annual growth rate by -9 percent.

RURAL WATER SUPPLY

EXPENDITURE AS THE

PERCENTAGE OF GSDP IN MP

The GSDP is the broadest indicator of

economic performance. Its change over time

reflects the pace of economic growth or

economic performance. Therefore,

comparing budget figures to the GSDP gives

us a lot of useful information. Comparing

public expenditure to the economy tells us

whether they are bigger or smaller than we

prefer them to be. Public expenditure needs

to grow as the economy grows in order to

provide the required public services at




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

adequate levels. In other words, growth in

expenditure needs to follow the growth in the

GSDP. This section is trying to find out that

what a proportion of state government’s own

income is spending on rural water supply.

(Refer Table 5)

If we look at the percentage of GSDP spend

on all the sectors in the table above we found

a negative growth rate except social sector

(0.6 percent) and sanitation (18 percent). The

percentage of GSDP spend on rural water

supply shows a high declining trends by -10.5

percent. After 2007-08 rural water supply

expenditure as the percentage of GSDP is

coming down gradually, this was stood at

0.42 percent in 2007-08 and reached at just

0.15 percent in the year 2016-17. (Refer

Fig.3)

However, from the 2007-08 despite the

increase in social services expenditure in MP

water supply share is continuously

decreasing, mainly in rural water supply.

During 2007-08 to 2016-17 annual growth

rate of rural water supply share in GSDP is -

10.4 percent, while for state expenditure it is

-1.58 percent and the growth rate of social

services expenditure share in GSDP is 0.6

percent.

Per-Capita Expenditure of Rural Water

Supply in MP

Per capita expenditure analysis is proved to

be better indicator in gauging the real benefits

reaching the rural people in the state. During

2007-08 to 2016-17, the average per capita

expenditure is Rs 180, and 158 for water

supply and rural water supply respectively,

during the same time per capita expenditure

has been grown per anum at the rate of 8.3

percent for water supply and 5.7 percent for

rural water supply. (Refer Fig 4)

During the study period per capita

expenditure of rural water supply has been

always lower than total water supply which

shows that state government is biased

towards urban areas in water supply

expenditure while the rural population is

much more vulnerable in the context of

resources they owned. The situation is dismal

in the rural areas where water is scarce, many

people trek kilometres every day in search of

water while others depend on polluted water

from ponds, stream, rainwater and floods for

domestic use, thereby increasing health

hazard. To contain these problems,

government should ensure good and safe

water supply in rural areas by increasing

spending in rural areas, at least rural




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

expenditure should be according to their

population share.

ALLOCATION AND EXPENDITURE

(BE AND ACTUAL) IN RURAL WATER

SUPPLY EXPENDITURE IN MP

Variance is the difference between Actual

Expenditure and Budget Estimate (BE).

Negative variance indicates under spending

and positive variance implies overspending.

The table below indicates the following

variance in rural water supply expenditure in

MP. Although the scope of the study does not

cover reason for under spending or

overspending we discuss them whenever the

reason is easily known to us. (Refer Table 5)

We can see in the table-6 that difference

between actual and estimates in the total state

expenditure is not much high, in the all

studied period it is under 10 percent with the

exception of 2010-11 and 2011-12. In rural

water supply expenditure difference between

actual and estimate is very high. In the year

2007-08 there was about 35 percent over

spending, and during 2014-15 to 2016-17

data is showing an under spending between

15 to 29 percent. Our analysis found a lot of

under spending of funds in the rural water

supply expenditure in the last three years

from 2014-15 to 2016-17. Especially in

2016-17, we found an under spending of up

to 29 per cent. This implies that the in the last

three years state’s rising allocation to rural

water supply has not been matched by the

actual expenditure, which has always lagged

far behind the budget estimates. Overall, in

the last three years that we have figures for,

2014-15 to 2016-17, on an average 23 per

cent of the funds allocated for the sectors

have not been spent. Mere allocation is not

enough unless there is proper utilization of

the funds. On an average during 2007-08 to

2016-17 variance (not taking – sign, under

spending and over spending included) of total

state budget is 6.4 percent, social services 8.4

percent, water supply 12 percent and rural

water supply is 16 percent. The analysis

shows that variance of actual expenditure to

the budgeted amount in total state

expenditure is small, but when we go deep

into rural water supply expenditure variance

is increasing. The state has thus maintained a

good record with reference to variance in

total state expenditure over the years but

variance is very high in sub sectors, The table

above provides evidence that the variance of

actual from the budgeted is more or less

acceptable in state expenditure and social

services expenditure, but it spills beyond




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

permissible limits in the case of water supply

and rural water supply expenditure. This

implies that whenever the lesser amount is

being spent, first it is the poor and voiceless

who gets affected and second, the sector

(rural) that attracts lower attention from

media suffers. A greater degree of variations

in budget estimates and actual expenditure is

not only a cause for concern generally but is

also of particular worry for the neglected

sectors of rural water supply.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

The analysis shows that according to census

2011 physical situation of rural households in

MP was much worse than all India’s average

in context of tap water supply, distance

travelled for fetching water and households

coverage with safe drinking water, but in

NRDWP data in 2016-17, situation of MP is

looking drastically improved and is in better

position than India’s average. Intended for

identify that, how MP government improved

its situation in rural water supply expenditure

in rural water supply in last seventeen years

was test out. Such an improvement in

household coverage can only be achieved by

good investment in the sector. But the

analysis of MP rural water supply

expenditure is presenting an extremely

different site where the state government is

reducing its expenditure in rural water supply

sector in comparison with all other sectors.

As analysis confirms that growth rate of

GSDP, total state expenditure, social sector

expenditure, total water supply expenditure

and sanitation expenditure are much higher

than rural water supply expenditure. Share of

rural water supply expenditure is

continuously impending down in total water

supply expenditure, total state budget and

GSDP. Per capita expenditure of rural water

supply is not growing with the pace of per

capita expenditure of total water supply; both

per capita were approximately equal in 2007-

08 but now urban per capita expenditure is

much higher. All analysed expenditure

figures creating a doubt on NRDWP data that

is screening drastic improvement in

household coverage without augmentation in

expenditure.

The ministry has prepared a strategic plan for

the rural drinking water sector for the period

2011 to 2022. The goal of the strategic plan

is to ensure, that every rural person has

enough safe water for drinking, cooking and

other domestic needs as well as livestock

throughout the year including during natural

disasters and, by 2022, every rural person in




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

the country will have access to 70 lpcd within

their household premises or at a horizontal or

vertical distance of not more than 50 meters

from their household without barriers of

social or financial discrimination. To achieve

this goal, government has targeted to ensure

at least 50 percent of rural households would

be provided with piped water supply by 2017

and 90 percent of rural households would be

provided with piped water supply by 2022.

While till 2011 only about 5 percent rural

households having treated piped water supply

and government is reducing its share of rural

water supply expenditure in comparison with

other sectors, as share of rural water supply

expenditure in MP to it GSDP that was about

0.35 percent in 2010-11 and have reached at

0.15 percent in 2016-17, with this approach

how can government achieve these goals.

Our analysis finds that due to the

implementation of the 14th finance

commission’s recommendation of untied

funds, there has been a positive impact on the

social services expenditure in the state as

significant rise in social services expenditure

but improved funds of social services

transferred into the housing and urban

development and the important sector like

rural water supply could not benefit.

The analysis shows that variance of actual

expenditure to the budgeted amount in total

state expenditure is small, but in rural water

supply variance is very high. Rural water

supply expenditure is showing higher level of

under spending. Large difference is comment

on not only the govt’s understanding,

planning and assessment of the need of

citizens but also on its implementation in

efficiencies. This implies that whenever the

lesser amount is being spent, first it is the

poor and voiceless who gets affected and

second, the sector (rural) that attracts lower

attention from media suffers.

Rural people are poorer than urban, and don’t

have enough resources to invest in the basic

necessity like clean drinking water, to

achieve a better economic growth rate and

higher productivity, priority should be given

to the health of these rural people, for which

provision of public utilities like clean

drinking water supply is necessary. Rural

people comprise a meagre resource that is

why they require more investment from

government. The level of government

expenditure allocated to the rural water

supply sector is estimated to be low in

relation other sectors. Along with the

decentralised policy-making process, the




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

government should also increase investment

in rural water supply. This shift in budgetary

allocations can help the rural sector to reap

benefits of the flagship programmes,

including Make in India, Skill India, Digital

India, Swachh Bharat and Smart Cities5.

REFERENCES

Goal 6: Ensure access to water and

sanitation for all, 17 Goals to Transform

Our Life, Sustainable Development

Goals, United Nations,

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopme

nt/water-and-sanitation/

Report of the Working Group on Rural

Domestic Water and Sanitation (2011).

Twelfth Five Year Plan – 2012-2017,

Ministry of Drinking Water and

Sanitation Government of India

September 2011

Manoj Kumar and Rohini Muckerjee

(2014). Safe drinking water for rural

populations in India: An effective service

delivery model by Naandi Foundation,

The journal of field actions, Special Issue

12 | 2014, Institut Veolia Environnement,

ISSN: 1867-8521, URL:

http://factsreports.revues.org/3655

Report of the Fourteenth Finance

Commission, Finance Commission of

India, Government of India, February

2015. Retrieved from

http://mof.gov.in/14fincomm/14fcreng.p

df

BS Ghuman (2015). Development yet to

embrace rural India, The Tribune, Posted

at Jul 13, 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/com

ment/development-yet-to-embrace-rural-

india/105743.html

Madhya Pradesh State Budget, Volume 1

and Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18.

Physical and Financial Progress Reports

National Rural Drinking Water

Programme, Ministry of Drinking Water

and Sanitation, Government of India

Census of India 2001, Projected Total

Population by sex as on March-2001-

2026 India, States and Union Territories,

http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2

001/Projected_Population/Projected_Pop

ulation.pdf

Alok Kumar, Ajay Nema, Jagat Hazarika,

Himani Sachdeva (2016-17). Social

Sector Expenditure of States Pre & Post

Fourteenth Finance Commission (2014-

15 & 2015-16). Retrieved from

http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/docu

ment_publication/Social%20Sector%20


http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/

http://factsreports.revues.org/3655

http://mof.gov.in/14fincomm/14fcreng.pdf

http://mof.gov.in/14fincomm/14fcreng.pdf

http://censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Projected_Population/Projected_Population.pdf



http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/Social%20Sector%20Expenditure%20of%20States_%20Paper.pdf




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Expenditure%20of%20States_%20Paper

.pdf

Avani Kapur, Vikram Srinivas and

Priyanka R Choudhury, State of Social

Sector Expenditure In 2015-16,

Accountability Initiative, Centre for

Policy Research, Dharam Marg,

Chanakyapuri, New Delhi – 110021.

Retrieved from

http://accountabilityindia.in/sites/all/pais

afiles/Newfiles/Summary%20State%20o

f%20social%20sector%20spending%201

5-16.pdf

Keshab Das 2012. Drinking Water and

Sanitation in Rural Madhya Pradesh:

Issues and Challenges for Policy, Journal

of Rural Development, Vol. 31, No. 3,

July - September : 2012, pp. 287 – 304

Indira Khurana and Romit Sen, WaterAid

(2009). Drinking water quality in rural

India: Issues and approaches,

Background Paper, Water Aid




http://accountabilityindia.in/sites/all/paisafiles/Newfiles/Summary%20State%20of%20social%20sector%20spending%2015-16.pdf






………………………………………………………………………………………………………

LIST OF TABLES:

Table-1

Expenditure and Household Habitation Coverage

States

Per Head

Expenditure

in Rural

Water

Supply,

Average

2011-12 to

2016-17 (In

Rs)

Tap

water

from

treated

source

(Total

HH)

Tap

water

from

treated

source

(Rural

HH)

Within

the

premises

(Total

HH)

Away

(Total

HH)

Safe

drinking

water

2011

census

(Rural)

Within

the

premises

(Rural

HH)

Away

(Rura

l HH)

Madhy

a

Prades

h 133 16 5 24 31 73 13 36

INDIA 188 32 18 47 18 83 35 22 Source: Expenditure data is from National Rural Drinking Water Programme, Data of Household Coverage is from

Census 2011, Population from Census, Projected Total Population by sex as on 1st March (2006) 2001-2026 India,

States and Union Territories

Table-2

Percentage of Fully Covered Habitations (As per 40 LPCD)

States 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Madhya

Pradesh 38.8 51.2 59.8 65.7 91.2 98.1 99.1 99.7

INDIA 69.3 70.2 70.1 73.9 68.6 73.7 74.1 75.7 Source: National Rural Drinking Water Programme




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Table-3

Percentage of Fully Covered Habitations (As per 55 LPCD)

States 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Madhya Pradesh 65.6 76.7 77.4 78.7

INDIA 38.9 42.8 43.3 44.9 Source: National Rural Drinking Water Programme

Table-4

Expenditure in Amount in Million Rs

Year

Total State

Expenditure

Social

Services

Water

Supply

and

Sanitation

Total

Water

Supply Sanitation

Rural Water

Supply

Expenditure

2007-08 335910 96240 9440 8870 580 6040

2008-09 380890 116750 9760 9350 400 6030

2009-10 476410 143410 9420 8900 520 5530

2010-11 575280 190680 11980 11110 870 7860

2011-12 775130 220360 12620 11890 730 8780

2012-13 799210 261260 14510 13360 1150 9810

2013-14 857620 297350 16570 14850 1730 10810

2014-15 1067860 341480 18580 16670 1910 9230

2015-16 1197660 457090 23200 17020 6180 8970

2016-17 RE 1566300 528640 34790 20300 14490 10590 Source: Computed by Author using Madhya Pradesh State Budget Volume 1 and Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Table-5

Expenditure as the Percentage of GSDP

Year

Total State

Expenditure

Social

Services

Water

Supply

and

Sanitation

Total

Water

Supply Sanitation

Rural Water

Supply

Expenditure

2007-08 23.23 6.66 0.65 0.61 0.04 0.42

2008-09 23.59 7.23 0.6 0.58 0.03 0.37

2009-10 24.15 7.27 0.48 0.45 0.03 0.28

2010-11 25.28 8.38 0.53 0.49 0.04 0.35

2011-12 24.56 6.98 0.4 0.38 0.02 0.28

2012-13 20.98 6.86 0.38 0.35 0.03 0.26

2013-14 19.68 6.82 0.38 0.34 0.04 0.25

2014-15 22.04 7.05 0.38 0.34 0.04 0.19

2015-16 21.2 8.09 0.41 0.3 0.11 0.16

2016-17 RE 21.95 7.41 0.49 0.28 0.2 0.15 Source: Computed by Author using GSDP at Current Price from CSO (2007-08 to 2015-16), MP budget at glance

(2016-17) and Expenditure data from Madhya Pradesh State Budget Volume 1 and Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18

Table - 6

Difference between Actual Expenditure and Budget Estimates

Year

Total State

Expenditure

Social

Services

Expenditure

Water Supply

and Sanitation

Expenditure

Water

Supply

Expenditure

Rural Water

Supply

Expenditure

2007-08 2.7 -4.6 17.2 19.3 34.7

2008-09 -3.4 -3.1 5.2 8.2 15.6

2009-10 2.6 -3.7 -7.9 -8.2 -8.4

2010-11 11.7 15.8 5.4 4.8 8.8

2011-12 17.7 0.4 1.1 2.1 12.7

2012-13 -0.1 -3.5 0.1 -0.6 10.9

2013-14 -6.7 -7.6 -5.0 -7.9 -0.1

2014-15 -8.8 31.6 -37.9 -21.0 -24.4

2015-16 -8.7 -2.6 -18.7 -23.9 -15.0

2016-17 -1.3 -11.1 -0.8 -25.2 -28.7 Source: Computed by Author using Madhya Pradesh State Budget Volume 1 and Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

LIST OF FIGURES:

Figure-1

Source: Computed by Author using Madhya Pradesh State Budget Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18

Figure-2

Source: Computed by Author using Madhya Pradesh State Budget Volume 1 and Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18

68.1

64.562.1

70.7

73.9 73.4 72.8

55.4

52.7 52.2

y = -1.5345x + 73.005

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

RE

Per

cen

tag

e

Year

Share of Rural Water Supply Expenditure in Total Water Supply

Expenditure

1.80

1.58

1.16

1.37

1.131.23 1.26

0.860.75

0.68

y = -0.1068x + 1.769

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

RE

Per

cen

tag

e

Year

Share of Rural Water Supply Expenditure in Total State Expenditure




………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Figure-4

Source: Computed by Author using GSDP at Current Price from CSO (2007-08 to 2015-16), MP budget at glance

(2016-17) and Expenditure data from Madhya Pradesh State Budget Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18

Figure-5

Source: Computed by Author using Census Data/Projected Population and Expenditure Data of Madhya Pradesh

State Budget Volume 3, 2007-08 to 2017-18

0.42

0.37

0.28

0.35

0.280.26 0.25

0.19

0.16 0.15

y = -0.0284x + 0.4259

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

RE

Per

cen

tag

e

Year

Share of Rural Water Supply Expenditure as the Percentage of GSDP

123 121109

153167 185

201

170163

190

131 136127

156164

182

199

220 222

261

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

RE

Am

ou

nt

in R

s

Year

Per Capita Expenditure

Rural Water Supply Total Water Supply


Documents

EVALUATION OF PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL PROGRESS OF RURAL WATER SUPPLY SECTOR IN MADHYA ... · 2017. 11. 3. · SUPPLY SECTOR IN MADHYA PRADESH Saifullah Khan SSL Jain PG College Vidisha/Barkatullah