<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title> Do states still pay the price for performance?</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Shanmugam, K. R.</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text">Economic &amp; Political Weekly</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <issuance>monographic</issuance>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marcform">print</form>
    <extent>61(19), May 9, 2026: p.72-78</extent>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract>As the devolution shares of better-performing states declined sharply over time, there were expectations of a decisive shift towards efficiency-oriented criteria to strengthen fiscal federalism and enhance state autonomy. However, the Sixteenth Finance Commission largely followed the approach of its predecessor, introducing only incremental changes in the distribution formula. Although it signalled a conceptual shift by acknowledging states’ contribution to gross domestic product, the adoption of a square root transformation substantially diluted the practical impact of this recognition. – Reproduced 

https://www.epw.in/journal/sixteenth-finance-commission/do-states-still-pay-price-performance.html
</abstract>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <name>
      <namePart>Economic &amp; Political Weekly </namePart>
    </name>
  </relatedItem>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">260612</recordCreationDate>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
