Growth of Public Debt in Haryana – Dynamism or Misplaced Priorities

Growth of Public Debt in Haryana – Dynamism or Misplaced Priorities

Narayan, Laxmi

Government PG College, Mahendergarh, Haryana, India, 123029

6 April 2017

Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/79431/

MPRA Paper No. 79431, posted 29 May 2017 05:34 UTC

n a y a r a N i m x a L

1. Introduc iton

s a t c e f f e s ti n i s u o m i n a n u n e e b t o n s a h t b e d f o e l o r g n i d r a g e r y r o e h t c i m o n o c E

f o s t c a p m i e v it a g e n s a l l e w s a e v it i s o p r o f e l b a li a v a e r a s t n e m u g r a l a c ir i p m e d n a l a c it e r o e h t

. t b e d c il b u

p Economist sdoagreet ha tno tal lpubilc debt sareequa land t hecos to fservicing .s

e ir t n u o c t n e r e f fi d n i t n e r e f fi d y r e v e b n a c s l e v e l t b e d c il b u p r a li m i

s Due to presence o f

b u s t a s t n i a rt s n o c t e g d u b t f o s d n a d r a z a h l a r o

m -naitona llevel ,the sustainablitiy o fdeb t n

i p o l e v e d o t e c n a tr o p m i e r o m f o e u s s i n a g n i m o c e b s i s e c n a n

if g count ires .The exisitng

e r u t c u rt s l a r e d e

f o f India coupled wtih common poo lproblem sand sof tbudge tconsrtaint s e

v a

h compilcatedmacroeconomicmanagement ,disto tredstate-leve ldeb t ifnancingdecisions , r

e t n i d a b e k a m o t s e t a t s d e g a r u o c n

e -tempora lbudge t choices and cont irbuted to majo r b

u s n i s n o it r o t s i

d -naitona lpubilc expendtiure composiiton (McCa tren ,2003) .The concern s e

n il p i c s i d n i l a c s if t u o b

a whichforce sSNGst o ilvebeyondt hei rmeans ,negaitngcompeititve t

p u r r o c g n ir e t s o f d n a s e v it n e c n

i ion and r ent-seekingha sbeen r aised by Weingast ( 2007) .In e

v a h s e i d u t s y n a m o s l a a i d n I f o e s a

c raised doubt sabou tqualtiy o fsub naitona l ifnances; e

n il p i c s i d l a c s

if and scope o fimprovement a tstate l evel (McCa tren 2003 ;Dholakia ,Mohan 4

0 0 2 n a r a K d n

a ; Prasad and Kishore 2007 ;Ashe r2012 ;Da s2013 ;Kau re tal ,2014 ;Da s 1

0

2 6) .Though t here are many studie sanalysing deb tsustainablitiy a tnaitonal l evel ,cross- y ti li b a n i a t s u s t b e d g n i n i m a x e s e i d u t s w e f a y l n o e r a e r e h t t u b l e v e l s

’ e t a t s t a s e i d u t s y rt n u o c

e t a t s l a u d i v i d n i t

a level( Dholakia ,MohanandKaran2004 ;Prasad ,GoyalandPrakash2004 ; ;

2 1 0 2 n a n n a K d n a i ri h a L ; 7 0 0 2 n a j a r a g a N d n a u i L , a n i h c i v o h c n a

I Da s2013 ;Du ttaandDutta

4 1 0

2 ;Maurya ,2015 ;Da s2016) .Sof arnocomprehensivestudyanalysingdeb tsustainablitiy n

i d e r e d i s n o c d o ir e p e h t r o f y lr a l u c it r a p a n a y r a H e h t r o

f thi s paper i s avaliable which

r e p a p e h t r o f n o it a v it o m d e d i v o r

p .An addiitona l impetus fo ra comprehensive analysi so f a

n a y r a H n i t b e d c il b u

p i sprovidedbyNarayan( 2016 )andChakrabo tryet .a.l(2017) . .l

a . t e y tr o b a r k a h

C (2017 ) based on the budge t esitmate s from 2016-17 budge t t

a h t d e t h g il h g i

h almos thal fo fthes tateshavea ifsca lde ifctit arge thighert hant he ilmtis eti n .t

c A t n e m e g a n a M t e g d u B d n a y ti li b i s n o p s e R l a c s i F e h

t Thei ndicator spe trainingt o Haryana t

a t s e h t t c i p e

d e t o be one of t he high deb tstates i n India as i tha shighest l eve lo frevenue de ifcti in t he counrty (-2.08 percen)t ,high ifsca lde ifci t(-4.25 percent ;onlyt hree state sha s

h g i h y r e v a , ) a n a y r a H n a h t ti c if e d l a c s if r e h g i

h interes tpayment t or evenue r eceipts raito o f ) 6 1 0 2 ( n a y a r a N h g u o h T . ) b a j n u P d n a l a g n e B t s e W f o t a h t y l n o n a h t s s e l(

t n e c r e p 7 . 6 1

t s a f s i a n a y r a H t u b l e v e l t n e r r u c t a e l b a n i a t s u s e r a a n a y r a H f o s e c n a n if e h t t a h t d e v r e s b o

g n i g r e m

e a s high deb t states o f the union. In ilgh t o f the above, the pape r made a c il b u p r e h t e h w d n a t s r e d n u o t w e i v a h ti w s e c n a n if e t a t s a n a y r a H f o s i s y l a n a e v i s n e h e r p m o c

g n i d n e p s d e c a l p s i m f o t l u s e r s i ti r o t n e m p o l e v e d d n a h t w o r g g n it a r e l e c c a r o f d e s u s i t b e d

y b y l n i a m s t n e m n r e v o g t n e b m u c n i e h t y b s e it ir o ir

p oppo trunisitcpre-electora lmanipulaitons . d

e t a m it s e r e p a p e h

T ifsca lreaciton funciton fo rHaryana to understand the governmen’t s n

i s e g n a h c r o f s e s n o p s e r y r a t e g d u

b debt .

2. LtieratureSurvey ) 7 1 0 2 ( n a m s l a

S simutlaneously expilcate sand c iritques t he mos tprominent t heo ire s e h t , y l e v it c u d o r p w o r r o b y e h t t o n r o r e h t e h w , e c a l p t s ri f e h t n i w o r r o b s e t a t s y h w g n i n r e c n o c

, tl u a f e d n e tf o y e h t y h w d n a h c u m o o t w o r r o b s e m it e m o s y e h t y h w , s t b e d r i e h t f o e c n e d i c n i

y lt i c il p x e r e h t e h

w ori mpilcilty.QuesitonposedbyBuchanan( 1966) ‘whenandwhopaysf o r e

d y b d e c n a n if e r u ti d n e p x e c il b u

p bt i ssue, i nstead o fby taxaiton?’ i sstli lrelevant .Alesina )

0 9 9 1 ( i n il l e b a T d n

a elaborated tha tbudge tde ifcti sand deb taccumulaiton can serve two s

e s o p r u

p - they provide a mean so fredist irbuitng i ncome ove r itme and acros sgeneraitons ; h ti w d e t a i c o s s a n o it a x a t f o s e s s o l t h g i e w d a e d e h t g n i z i m i n i m f o s n a e m a s a e v r e s y e h t d n a

.s e c i v r e s d n a s d o o g c il b u p f o n o i s i v o r p e h

t Feldstein (1985 )concluded that i fthe stock o f g n i d n e p s n i e s a e r c n i y r a r o p m e t a e c n a n if o t r e tt e b s i ti , l e v e l l a m it p o n a t a y ll a it i n i s i l a ti p a c

. e t a r x a t e h t f o e r a u q s e h t n o s d n e p e d n o it a x a t f o n e d r u b s s e c x e e h t e s u a c e b , t b e d h g u o r h t

c s n o it a r e n e g e r u t u f t a h t s e d u l c n o c ) 9 0 0 2 ( r e g g i

W ouldbeneftif romPonzis cheme sbyi ssuing .

y g o l o n h c e t n o d n a s e c n e r e f e r p r i e h t n o g n i d n e p e d , t b e

d Tanz i(2016 )argued t hatt he use t o

t b e d l a t o t e h t n o e t a r t s e r e t n i e g a r e v a e h t ,t u p s i y e n o m d e w o r r o b e h t h c i h

w da n thematurtiy

. s e ir t n u o c s s o r c a t b e d c il b u p f o t c a p m i e h t e n i m r e t e d h c i h w t b e d e h t f o

f o s t c e f f e e v it a g e n d e h s il b a t s e e v a h s e i d u t s , e d i s r e h t o n

O the pubilc debt .Maritn

) 9 0 0 2

( documented tha tthe weflare in an economy wtih deb ti slowe rthan tha to fan economywtihou tdebt ;WooandKumar( 2010 )foundani nverser elaitonshipbetweeni niita l

; h t w o r g d n a t b e

d Cecchett i e t a.l (2010 ) opined tha t pubilc deb t d irve down captia l g

n o l d n a h t w o r g y ti v it c u d o r p , n o it a l u m u c c

a -term potenita lgrowth potenita;l Osrty et .al t

b e d c il b u p n e e w t e b p i h s n o it a l e r e v it a g e n g n o rt s a d e z i n g o c e r ) 5 1 0 2

( andpub ilci nvestment ;

, k i d u h

C e tal .(2015 )ha salso found “signi ifcan tnegaitve long-run effect so fpubilc deb t d

li u

b -up on outpu tgrowth” ;Suthe lrand and Hoeller (2012 )opined tha thigh pubilc deb t r

s e s u a

c educed economic stablitiy due to t he inablitiy o f the governmen t to respond ;

s k c o h s e s r e v d a o t y lt n e i c if f

e Afonso a nd Jalle s(2013) asce trained negaitve effec to fdeb t u

d o r p d n a h t w o r g c i m o n o c e n o s i s ir c l a i c n a n if d n a o it a

r citvtiy ;Hukkinen and Vrien ( 2017 )

d n u o f o s l

a that t he i nverse relaitonship between growth and debt i s i ndeed qutie robus tand n o it a l u m u c c a t b e d l a c il c y c e h t n a h t r e h t a r s i s e h t o p y h ' t b e d c i x o t' e h t t r o p p u s o t s d n e t

.s i s e h t o p y h

l e r s e i d u t s f o d n a rt s d ri h t e h

T ated to the determinaiton o fthreshold level sbeyond .

e v it a g e n s n r u t h t w o r g n o t b e d c il b u p f o t c a p m i e h t h c i h

w Economist shavel ongdebatedt he

. h t w o r g c i m o n o c e e h t e v ir d o t s a o s t b e d c il b u p f o l e v e l e t a ir p o r p p

a Somer ecen tpaper shave

d e t a m it s

e thet hreshold effec to fpubilcdebt t o economic growth( Aschaue r2000 ;Cecchett i .l

a t

e 2010 ;Reinhar tand Rogof f2010 ;C irsitna andRother2012 ;Herndon ,Ash ,and Poliln 4

1 0

2 ;Lombardi e ta.l (2017) .Aschaue r(2000 )concluded t ha tthe growth maximizing raito 4

4 4 . 0 l a u q e o t d e t a m it s e s i l a ti p a c e t a v ir p o t l a ti p a c c il b u p f

o fo rcore pubilc captia land

3 .

0 13 fo rothe rpubilc captial .Reinhar t& Rogoff (2010) found t ha tdeb traito o fmore t han y

b e s a e r c e d o t h t w o r g s e s u a c

% 0

9 o nepercent .C irsitna da n Rother(2012)observed t hatt he t

b e

d - ot -GDPt urningpoin toft hi sconcaver elaitonship i(nvetredU-shape)i sr oughlybetween

e l p m a s e h t r o f e g a r e v a n o

% 0 0 1 d n a 0

9 count ires .Theyobserved t hat t he channels t hrough h t w o r g c i m o n o c e e h t n o t c a p m i n a e v a h o t d n u o f s i ) e g n a h c r o l e v e l(

t b e d t n e m n r e v o g h c i h w

) v i(

d n a ) P F T ( y ti v it c u d o r p r o t c a f l a t o t )i ii (

;t n e m t s e v n i c il b u p ) ii (

; g n i v a s e t a v ir p ) i(

: e r a e t a r

n o l n g i e r e v o

s g-termnomina landr eali nterestr ates .Theclaim so fReinhar t&Rogoff (2010) .s

e i d u t s t n e u q e s b u s y b d e t u f e r y l g n o rt s e r e

w Herndon ,Ash ,andPoliln ( 2014)i n t hec iritque f

o e m o s g n i g n e ll a h c e l c it r

a the Reinhar t& Rogoff ifnding sconcluded t hat t he average rea l c

il b u p a g n i y r r a c s e ir t n u o c r o f e t a r h t w o r g P D

G -d - oebt t -GDP raito o fove r90 percen ti s t

o n , t n e c r e p 2 . 2 y ll a u t c

a -0.1 percen ta spubilshed by Reinhar t& Rogoff .Swamy(2015 ) n

e r e f fi d e r a s ti m il d l o h s e r h t t a h t d n u o

f tfo rdfiferen tgroup o fcount ires .Fo r58 developing s

e ir t n u o

c threshold i s84.17 percen tbu tfo rBRICS count ires i ti s31.47 percen tand fo r s

r e w o l ti t e k r a m g n i g r e m

e t o 24.63 percen.t The studyhighilghted t hat every addiitona l10 t

b e d n i e s ir t n e c r e

p - ot -GDP raito beyond the deb tthreshold cost s10 to 30 basi spoint so f .

h t w o r g P D G l a e r e g a r e v a l a u n n

a Chudik e tal .(2015 )also could not ifnd a universally r e tf a h t w o r g d n a t b e d c il b u p n e e w t e b p i h s n o it a l e r e h t n i t c e f f e d l o h s e r h t e l p m i s e l b a c il p p a

t n u o c c

a ingf or t heeffect so fglobalf actor .s Lombard ie ta.l ( 2017) foundt ha tnegaitve l ong- t

b e d d l o h e s u o h e h t s a y fi s n e t n i o t d n e t n o it p m u s n o c n o t b e d h g i h f o s t c e f f e n u

r - ot -GDPr aito

a r e h t n e h w r u c c o o t s m e e s n o it a c if i s n e t n i t a h t , h t w o r g P D G r o F .

% 0 6 s d e e c x

e ito exceed s

.

% 0

8 Lee e ta.l (2017 )found no evidence o fa threshold around 90 percent ;thei r ifnding s t s i x e y a m h t w o r g c i m o n o c e r o f d l o h s e r h t t b e d e h t t a h t t s e g g u s e l p m a s r a w t s o p e h t m o r f

t b e d l l a m s y l e v it a l e r a d n u o r

a - ot -GDP raito o f30 percent .They concluded tha ta d - oebt t - v

o b a o it a r P D

G e30 percen twould suppresst he G DPgrowth by1 percentagepoint l owe ra t .

n a i d e m e h

t Fo rIndia ,Dholakia ,Mohan and Karan (2004) in t he background study to 12^th C

F ( n o i s s i m m o C e c n a n i

F - IX ) I analyzed wha t interes t burden a state can tolerate a s a n

o it r o p o r

p o f tisr evenue r eceipt .s Debt i ssaid t obe t olerable i fservicing i tdoe snoti mpose n

o it i s o p l a c s if e h t n o n e d r u b e l b a r e l o t n i n

a oft hestate. Thei r ifndingsconsideredone- if tfho f e

u n e v e

r receipt spaid asi nteres tpayment sa sa t olerable raito. Topalova and Nyberg (2010 ) e

v a

h suggestedt ha tar easonableandf easiblepub ilcdeb tceiilnganchorf or I ndia’ smedium- e

b d l u o c k r o w e m a r f l a c s if m r e

t around 06 -65 percen to fGDP .Kau rand Mukhe jree (2012 ) t

t a h t d n u o

f he t hreshold l eve lo fpubilcdebt f or I ndiawork soutt o be around61 pe rcen to f P

D

G .Thi treenth Finance Commission (FC-XIII )had se ta t arge to f68 pe rcen to fGDP fo r s

e t a t s d n a e rt n e c f o t b e d d e n i b m o c e h

t sitpulatedtobeattainedby2014- .1 5 TheCommission o

it a r P D S G /t b e d d e t e g r a t e h t t e

s tobel esst han25%fors tates. 3. DataandMethodology

if r o j a m n o a t a

D scali ndicatorsf ort hepe irod1980-81t o2009- 01 anddetalieddataon 0

9 9 1 d o ir e p e h t r o f t n u o c c a l a ti p a c d n a e u n e v e r e h t n i s n o it c a s n a rt e h

t - 19 to 2009- 10 are

m o r f d e n i a t b

o “Handbooko fStaitsitc sonStateGovernmen tFinances”pubilshedbyt heRBI . 7

0 0 2 r e tf a d o ir e p e h t r o

F -08, t he data i sobtained from RB’I s‘State Finances ’repo tr sfrom 9

0 0

2 -10t o2015- .16 Thedataf o r201 - 04 2 51 i sbasedonr evisedesitmate sandf or 02 51 -20 61 .s

e t a m it s e t e g d u b e h t n o d e s a b s i

e t a t s e h t s a h c u s s e i d o b t n e r e f fi d y b d e t p o d a s e h c a o r p p a t n e r e f fi d n e e b e v a h e r e h T

,s t n e m n r e v o

g the Reserve Bank o fIndia ,Of ifce of t he Comprtolle rand Audtio rGenera lo f a

i d n

I (CAG )andt heFinanceCommissions( FCs ,) leadingt odfiferencesi nt hemeasuremen t f

o state leve lpubilc debt .To ensure unanimtiy on the de ifniiton and composiiton o fState f

o t r o p e R , s e it il i b a il s t n e m n r e v o

G the Working Group on Compliaitono fState Governmen t s

e it il i b a i

L - 2005 ’classfiy State Governmen t ilabiilite sinto interna ldebt , loan from the s

ti s o p e d d n a s d n u f e v r e s e r , d n u f t n e d i v o r p d n a s g n i v a s l l a m s , r e t n e

C & advance .s Interna l

d n a k n a b m o r f s n a o l , F S S N o t d e u s s i s e it ir u c e s l a i c e p s , s g n i w o r r o b t e k r a m s e d u l c n i t b e d

n o it u ti t s n i l a i c n a n

if sandway sandmean sadvancesf romReserveBankofI ndia. Interna ldeb t d e t a d il o s n o c e h t r e d n u d e r u c e s s i d n a t b e d c il b u p e h t e t u ti t s n o c r e t n e C e h t m o r f s n a o l d n a

.s t n e m n r e v o G e t a t S e h t f o d n u

f On the recommendaiton s o fthe ‘Committee on Smal l a

,

’ s g n i v a

S separate fund called the Naitona lSmal lSaving sFund (‘NSSF’ )wa screated, 1

. f.

e .

w ^st Ap ir l1999 ,wtihint he PubilcAccount i nto whichal lsmal lsaving swere depostied (seeGO I2011) . Al lwtihdrawal sunde rsmal lsavingscheme sbyt hedepostior saremadeou t

. d n u f s i h t f

o P iro rto 1999 ,NSSF fund swere disbursemen to floan sfrom smal lsaving d e r e d i s n o c s a w d n a a i d n I f o d n u f d e t a d il o s n o c e h t m o r f s a w s t n e m n r e v o G e t a t S o t s n o it c e ll o c

t b e d l a n r e t n i f o t r a p m r o f y e h t , y lt n e s e r p t u B . s n a o l t n e m n r e v o G l a rt n e C s

a oft hestate .The

s d n u f e v r e s e r , s t p i e c e r d n u f t n e d i v o r p e t a t

S ,deposti s& advancesand smal lsaving scheme s .

s e t a t s e h t f o s e it il i b a il t n u o c c a c il b u p f o t r a p m r o f s e v l e s m e h t e t a t S e h t y b n u

r Presen tpape r

. e e tt i m m o c e h t y b d e t s e g g u s h c a o r p p a e h t s e s

u I twould be peritnent t o note here t ha ttota l g

n i d n a t s t u o f o e r u s a e m a s a d e s u n e e b s a h d e s u n e e b e v a h s e it il i b a il g n i d n a t s t u

o pubilc debt

e s o p r u p l a c it y l a n a r o

f unles sotherwisespeci ifed .Weusedt ota loutstanding ilabiilite sonl as t a

e y l a i c n a n if f o y a

d rast hedebts tockoft ha tyear . e

h

T aim oft he pape ri s tor aise ce trainquesiton sand seekanswer sabou tpubilc deb t :

e r a d e s i a r s n o it s e u q n i a M . a n a y r a H n

i i( )w hatis t hecomposi itono fHaryana government’ s k

c o t s t b e

d and wha tchange si thas undergone ove r itme? (ii )Wha tare the source sfrom a

n a y r a H e r e h

w governmen t ifnance s ti sdeb tand wha thavebeen theri rtends? i(ii )Wha tha s ) v i(

? d e c n a n if e r a s ti c if e d e s e h t w o h d n a a n a y r a H n i ti c if e d l a c s if f o n o it i s o p m o c e h t n e e b

a s d n u f d e w o r r o b e h t s e s u t a h

W re pu tinto ,tha tis ,whethe rthe deb tfund sare used fo r e

v it c u d o r

p captia lexpendtiure o rfo rmeeitng rou itne revenue expendtiure o rfo r ifnancing

? s t b e d d l

o (vi )I sHaryana governmen table to manage ti s ifnance swtihin the parameter s )

v ( .s n o i s s i m m o c e c n a n if s u o ir a v d n a t c A M B R F y b d e t s e g g u

s A re Haryana governments

n o z ir o h e m it r e g n o l a r e v o n i a t s u s o t h g i h o o t e r a s e it il i b a

il ? (vi )W hatist her oleo fdfiferen t

? t b e d c il b u p o t s d r a g e r h ti w s e m i g e r l a c it il o

p And ifnally( vi )Toknowwhethert hedeb twa s r

o t n e m p o l e v e d r o f t n e m e ri u q e r g n i d ir r e v o y b d e t a ti s s e c e

n i twa sa resul to fpoo r ifsca l

y b s e c n a n if e t a t s f o t n e m e g a n a

m Haryanagovernment .

h

T e approach adopted i n t he paper i s t o ifnd out t he rtends i n va irou sva irable sand .

y d u t s r e d n u d o ir e p e h t r o f s r o t a c i d n

i Annua l growth rate s are esitmated using semi- m

r o f e h t f o n o it c n u f c i m h ti r a g o

l LogY=a+bt. tI i scalculateda s%growth=( antliogo fb– x

)

1 100 .Vairou saccounitng i denttii es have been used t o understand t he i nter-relaitonship d

n a k c o t s t b e d n e e w t e

b related va irable .s The i ndicato rbased analysi so fdeb tsustainablitiy

s c i m a n y d t b e d e h t n o d e s a b , y ti li b a n i a t s u s t b e d f o s r o t a c i d n i g n i s u d e s s e s s a s a

w equaitons .

d e n i a l p x e s i s c i m a n y d t b e d e h

T usingf ollowingnoitons:

Dt :Stocko fDebt Dt D� t-1�D P

I t :I nteres tPayment s IPt � ƞt.Dt-1

R t :Governmen tnon-deb tRevenue Rt =RR+Di Isnve tsment+RecLoans G t :Governmen tP irmary( N -onIntere ts )Spending

PB :P irmaryo rNon-Interes tBalance PBt R� t – Gt

ƞ t :NominalI nteres tRate ƞt � PI t/Dt-1

λt :I n lfaitonRate λt � Nomina lGSDP/Rea lGSDP rt :r eali nterestr ateongovernmen tdebt r t��1� λt��.1� ƞt�

gt :growthr ateofr ea lGDP gt� Yt/Yt-1

PtYt: Nonima lGDP PtYt� � 1� λt��.1� gt �Pt-1Yt-1

dt :debtt oGDPr aito dt D� t/PtYt

b

p t :Raitoo fP irmaryDe ifctitoGDP pbt = BP t/PtYt

s c i m a n y D t u o g n i k r o W

t n i a rt s n o C t e g d u B w o l

F : Dt - Dt-1 � Gt-Rt � ƞt.Dt-1 ⟹ Dt� � 1� ƞt�Dt-1 - BP t - --�1� r

e t n

I -tempora lBudge tBudge tConsrtaintfo rt =3

D1 � � 1� ƞ�D0 – BP 1

D2 � � 1� ƞ�D1 – BP 2

� 1

�

� ƞ��.�1� ƞ�D0– BP 1 �– BP 2

� 1

�

� ƞ�² .D0– �1� ƞ .�PB1– BP 2

D3 � � 1� ƞ�D2 – BP 3

� 1

�

� ƞ��.�1� ƞ�² .D0– �1� ƞ .�PB1– BP 2 �– BP 3

� 1

�

� ƞ�³ .D0– �1� ƞ�².PB1– �1� ƞ �PB2– BP 3

r e t n I , g n i s il a r n e

G -tempora lBudge tBudge tConsrtaintfo rt =N

DN � � 1� ƞ�^N .D0–∑ �1 � ƞ�^𝑁_𝑗=1 ^𝑁−𝑗. BP _j - �2�-- n

o it i d n o C y c n e v l o S g n i v i r e D

y b s e d i s h t o b g n i d i v i d y

B (1+1)^NandputitngD0ont heothers ide D0 � ∑^𝑁_𝑗=1�_1+ƞ¹ �^𝑗. 𝐵𝑃 _𝑗 � �_1+ƞ¹ �^𝑁. 𝐷_𝑁 --- �3�

o N ( y ti l a s r e v s n a r

T -Ponz iScheme )Condi iton n

o it i d n o C y ti l a s r e v s n a r

T (alsocalledno-Ponz igamecondiiton) essenitallymeanst ha t e

h

t governmen tdoe sno tservice ti sdeb t(p irncipa land interest )by issuing new deb ton a s

i s a b r a l u g e

r ,inde ifntiely. Unde rthe no-Ponz igame condiiton ,deb tand interes tpayment s

.r e v e r o f d e n o p t s o p e b t o n n a

c T hisrequriest hat ,overt hel ongt erm,t hepresen tvalue o fdeb t o

r e z s d r a w o t e n il c e d t s u

m .Symboilcally

m i

𝑛→∞L � 1 1 � ƞ�

𝑁 D. N= 0 --- �4�

g n i m u s s

A rtansversaltiy condiiton,t heoutstandingi niita ldeb tmus tbecoveredbyt he ,

y ll a c il o b m y S . s e c n a l a b y r a m ir p e r u t u f f o e u l a v t n e s e r p

D0 � � � 1 1 � Ƞ�

∞ 𝑗

𝑗=1

. 𝐵𝑃 _𝑗 -- - �5�

s u t e l , w o

N inrtoducedebt-GDPr aitoi nt heanalysis ,

P D G l a n i m o n y b ) 1 ( . q e g n i d i v i d y

B PtYt

𝐷𝑡

𝑃𝑡𝑌𝑡 �

�

𝑡)(1+𝑔𝑡)

�.

𝑃𝑡𝑌𝑡� � �𝑃𝐵𝑡

𝑃𝑡𝑌𝑡� - �6� -- dt �

�

𝑡)(1+𝑔_𝑡)

�.

�

𝑡)

�.

y b d e n i a t b o e b n a c s d o ir e p e m it o w t n e e w t e b r e v o o it a r P D S G /t b e d n i e g n a h c e h T

d g n it c a rt b u

s t-1fromequaiton(8 )andr earranging ,wehave

dt�

�

𝑡)

� 1�.

d a m r e p a p e h t , s c i m a n y d t b e d e v o b a n o d e s a

B economet irc s esitmaiton s to

e h t n i y d u t s r e d n u d o ir e p e h t r o f t b e d t n e m n r e v o g a n a y r a H f o y ti li b a n i a t s u s e h t d n a t s r e d n u

.) 5 0 0 2

&

8 9 9 1 ( n h o B y b d e t s e g g u s k r o w e m a r

f Before esitmaitng ifscal r esponse f unciton f o r a

n a y r a

H , uni troo ttest susing Phliilps-Perron ( PP ) ,augmented Dickey–Fuller(ADF) and i

k s w o k t a i w

K –Phliilps–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS) test swere used for t he tesitng t he staitonartiy e

h t f

o itmeseire sva irables .Thepape rusedHod irck–Prescott(HP ) iftlerfo rseparaitngcycilc p

x E e t a g e r g g A d n a P D S G n i s d n e

rt endtiure .The esitmated were affected by presence o f l

a ir e s / o t u

a correlaiton; the equaiton sare re-esitmated using the Hlidreth– uL method using .

e r a w tf o S l t e r G n i e l b a li a v a s n o it c n u

f

n o it c u d o rt n

I o fFisca lResponsibi ilite sLegislaiton sby enactmen to fFRBM Ac tby r e p a p e h T . g n i w o r r o b s s o r g r e v o p a c a d n a s ti c if e d e u n e v e r o r e z d e g a s i v n e t n e m n r e v o g e t a t s

e r p g n ir u d t n e m n r e v o g a n a y r a H f o e c n a m r o f r e p e v it a r a p m o c e h t t a k o o

l -FRBM and post-

i d o ir e p M B R

F nordert ounderstand tisf uturei mpilcaitonsf ors tate ifnance so fHaryana .Ina s

n i a g e t a r o t c e l e r o f d e s u s i y c il o p l a c s if e h t , p u t e s c it a r c o m e

d (see Drazon 2000 .) Poilitca l

y r o e h t e l c y c t e g d u

b estabilshe s tha t incumben t governmen t increase expendtiure and n

o it c e ll o c s e g r a h c r e s u / e e f/

x a t e c u d e r/

x a l e

r closet oelecitons .Thepape rcompared mean so f r

o f s r o t a c i d n i l a c s if s u o ir a

v electoralcycleyear swtihnorma lyears . 4. Trendsi nDeb tandDe ifctiI ndicators

. 1 .

4 Trendsi nDeifctiI ndicator s

f o n o it a m m u s s i k c o t s t b e d g n i d n a t s t u o t a h t w o n k e w s

A Gros sFisca lDe ifci t(GFD )

a n a y r a H f o D F G n i d n e rt e h t d n a t s r e d n u o t t n a tr o p m i s i ti o S . s r a e y e h t r e v o d e t a l u m u c c a

0 8 9 1 , s i t a h t , d o ir e p y d u t s e h t r e v

o -81 to 2015- .1 6 Gros sFisca lDe ifci ti sde ifned a sthe n

o n l a t o t e h t r e v o t n e m n r e v o g e h t f o e r u ti d n e p x e l a t o t f o s s e c x

e -deb tcreaitng receipts .The

a H f o s r o t a c i d n i ti c if e d n i s d n e

rt ryanapresentedi nchar t1 depicts t hatt heStateGovernmen t s

o r g d e c n e ir e p x e s a

h s ifsca lde ifci tin al lthe year so fstudy excep tin 2006- .0 7 Since the s s o r G , e r o f e r e h t , g n i w o r r o b h g u o r h t d e r e v o c e b t s u m e r u ti d n e p x e r e v o s t p i e c e r n i ll a ft r o h s

n e v i g a r e v o t n e m n r e v o g e h t f o s t n e m e ri u q e r g n i w o r r o b l l a r e v o e h t s e v i g t i c if e D l a c s i F

c n a n

if ia lyear .And t hu sshowst he ne taddiiton t o t hel eve lo fpubilc deb tdu irnga ifnancia l .r

a e y

ti c if e d y r a m ir p e h T

) e n il d e r y b d e t c i p e d

( wa sfound

d o ir e p e h t f o t s o m r o f e v it a g e n

m o r f s r a e y w e f t p e c x e y d u t s r e d n u

2 0 0

2 -03 to 2007-08 . P irmary t

i c if e

d capture s a state’ s ifsca l t i e c n i s y l e v i s n e h e r p m o c r u o i v a h e b

r e h t o s e r u ti d n e p x e l l a s r e d i s n o c

e h t y l n o d n a t n e m y a p t s e r e t n i n a h t

s e u n e v e r n w o s

’ e t a t

s (Dholkia and

, n a r a

K 2004 .) tI show s the ne t .

s n o it a r e p o l a c s if s

’ r a e y t n e r r u c e h t o t e u d s s e n d e t b e d n i s

’t n e m n r e v o g e h t n i e s a e r c n

i P irmary

s i t i c if e

d equa l to ifsca l de ifci t o f curren t yea r minu s interes t payment s on previou s .s

g n i w o r r o

b Zero p irmaryde ifcti smeans t ha tgovernmen thas t or eso tr t o borrowingonly t o .

s t n e m y a p t s e r e t n i e k a

m Ar educitoni np irmarydeifctii sr e lfecitveo fgovernmen’t seffo tr sa t .r

a e y l a i c n a n if a g n ir u d p a g l a c s if e h t g n i g d ir

b Thede ifctii ndicatorsf ort he itmepe irod1980- 5

1 0 2 o t 1

8 -16s howni nchar t1clea lryr evealst ha trevenuede ifcti ,whichwa sposiitvef ort he .

r e tf a r i e h t d o ir e p e h t f o t s o m r o f e v it a g e n s a w d o ir e p l a it i n

i Theef ifcien t ifsca lmanagemen t

e u n e v e r e c n e h ; e u n e v e r t n e r r u c y b d e c n a n if e b d l u o h s e r u ti d n e p x e t n e r r u c t a h t s e ri u q e r

h s ti c if e

d ouldbezeroo rposi itve .

P D S G / D P d n a P D S G / D F G s r o t a c i d n i t i c if e d o w t n o a n a y r a H f o e c n e ir e p x e e h

T i s

d e s y l a n

a by t hei rscatte rplo tpresented in cha tr- .2 The irgh tuppermos tcorne rha sonly one b

o n e v e S . e v it i s o p e r a D F G d n a D P h t o b t a h t g n it a c i d n i y rt n

e servaiton sfall sin lef tdown

t r a h

C 1 .Fsic laImbaalnce :Ba is cDeif ic I tndciators

- 12.6

- 14.2 - 42.7

- 74.3 - 13.5

- 72.4 - 92.7

- 33.5 - 32.8

- 02.3 - 62.5

- 13.3 - 83.0

- 35.1 - 64.3

- 24.5 - 22.2

- 73.9 - 61.2

- 60.2 2 9 . 0

- 30.8

- 93.5 - 14.5

- 92.7 - 92.3

- 33.0 - 42.1

- 93.5 - 83.3 5

5 . 1

7 3 . 2

9 3 . 0

- 90.4 - 71.9 - 12.2

- 31.4

- 53.0 - 31.5

- 62.8 - 12.0 - 40.5

- 50.8 - 81.2 - 81.6

- 61.0- 80.5 - 80.1 - 41.4

- 90.7

- 52.8 - 41.8

2 7 . 0

- 11.1 7 0 . 11.67

8 6 . 2

1 7 . 0

- 12.3 - 93.2

- 30.6

- 21.6

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

PDSG fo egatnecrep sa ticifeD

) P D S G f o

% ( t ic if e D l a c si F s s o r

G Revenu eDeific( t%o fGSDP)

) P D S G f o

% ( t ic if e d yr a m ir P

. h g i h e r a D P d n a D F G h t o b g n it a c i d n i , r e n r o

c A scan be seen in the cha tr ,mos to fthe

m o r f D F G n i l l a f s n o it a v r e s b

o -2.5 percen tto -3.5 percen tand PD from 0 percen tto - 2.0 0

8 9 1 d o ir e p e h t r o f s ti c if e d e g a r e v A . t n e c r e

p -81 t o 2015-16 are GFD/GSDP -2.92 percent , P

D S G / D

R -0.41percen tandPD/GSDP-1.09percen.t

D F G , e v o b a d e s s u c s i d s A

g n i w o r r o b l l a r e v o e t a c i d n i

a g n ir u d s e t a t s e h t f o s t n e m e ri u q e r

f o n r e tt a p e h T . r a e y l a i c n a n if

g n i c n a n

if adopted by the y l e t a m it l u d l u o w t n e m n r e v o g

t b e d g n i d n a t s t u o e h t n i t c e lf e r

. e t a t s e h t f o k c o t

s The pattern o f a e n o g r e d n u s a h D F G g n i c n a n if

0 8 9 1 e c n i s e g n a h c t n a c if i n g i

s - .81

0 8 9 1 n

I -81 ,8.04percen to fde ifci t t e k r a m y b d e c n a n if s a w r

e p 4 . 8 3 d n a g n i w o r r o

b cen twa s ifnanced by loan sfrom the cenrte and remaining 53.6 s

a w t n e c r e

p ifnanced from othe r source tha t include , inter-aila , Conitngency Funds , r

e t n I , s d n u F y c n e g n it n o C o t n o it a ir p o r p p

a -State Setltement ,Land Compensaiton and Othe r F

m o r f s n a o L d n a s d n o

B inancialI nst tiuiton .sThepatterno f ifnancingconitnuedt li l1998- .99 s

a h g n i w o b t e k r a m s r a e y t n e c e r n

I emerged a smain source o f ifnancing .In 2015-16 ,97.87 t b e d n i n o it i d d a t a h t s e t a c i d n i s i h T . g n i w o r r o b t e k r a m h g u o r h t d e c n a n if s a w t b e d f o t n e c r e p

m o

c posiitono fHaryanai spredominanltygoingt obei nt hef ormo fmarketl oans . 4.2Decomposiitono fGros sFisca lDeifcti/Useo fBorrowedFunds

e h t n i d e t c e lf e r s a ( t n e m e ri u q e r g n i w o r r o b l l a r e v o e h

T gros s ifsca lde ifcti )can be

y li d a e

r decomposedintoanalyitcallymeaningfu lcomponents .Decomposiitono f ifsca lde ifci t e

h t s n a e m y ll a c i s a

b purposef o rwhicht heborrowedf und sarerequriedt o ifnance .Borrowed o

t y l n o e l b i s s o p s a r a f s a d e s u e b d l u o h s s d n u

f fundcaptia lexpendtiure which i ncreases t he t

e m y ll u f e b d l u o h s e r u ti d n e p x e e u n e v e r e li h w y m o n o c e f o y ti c a p a c t n e m y a p e

r fromr evenue

s t p i e c e

r (Rao ,2002 ;Lahi ir ,2000 .) The prope ruse o fthe borrowed fund scan be accessed l

a c s i F s A . ti c if e d l a c s if e h t f o n o it i s o p m o c e h t m o r

f de ifci ti sde ifned a sthe exces so f

n o n r e v o e r u ti d n e p x e e t a g e r g g

a -debtr eceip tof t hestate, t he composiitonoft he ifsca lde ifci t c

il b u p f o e s u e h t t u o b a a e d i n a s e v i g e t a t s e h t f

o deb toft hestate.Fisca lDeifcti ,ont heothe r a

t o t n e e w t e b e c n e r e f fi d e h t s i , d n a

h lexpendtiure (ne to fdebt repayment )and tota lreceip t t

p i e c e r e h t n o s u h T . )t p i e c e r l a ti p a c g n it a e r c t b e d g n i d u l c x e

( side only non deb tcaptia l

e r a ) s d e e c o r p t n e m t s e v n i s i d s u l p s n a o l f o s e ir e v o c e r ( t p i e c e

r incorporatedwhliedeb tcreaitng

t p i e c e r l a ti p a

c sare l ef tout .The scheme o fdecomposiiton can be understood by following s

n o it a t n e s e r p e r

t r a h

C 2 .GFD/GSDPv sPD/GSDP

GFD = Tota lExpendtiure- Repaymen to fdeb t– RevenueReceipts– nN -o Deb t s

t p i e c e R l a ti p a

C – Recoveryo fLoan sandAdvances e r u ti d n e p x E l a ti p a C + e r u ti d n e p x E e u n e v e R

= – Repaymen t o f deb t –

s t p i e c e R e u n e v e

R – N -on Deb tCap tia lReceipt s– Recovery o fLoans and s

e c n a v d A

= RevenueExpendtiure+Captia lOultay+Loan sandAdvances+Repaymen t t

b e D f

o - Repaymen to fDebt – Recovery o fLoan sand Advances – s

t p i e c e R e u n e v e

R – nN -o Deb tCaptia lReceipt s e

r u ti d n e p x E e u n e v e R (

= – RevenueReceipts )+Captia lOultay+( Loan sand s

e c n a v d

A - Recoveryo fLoan sandAdvances )– nN -o Deb tCaptia lReceipt s

= RevenueDeifci t+Captia lOu ltay+Ne tLending – nN -o deb tCaptia l st

p i e c e R

e r e

H , nN -o Deb tCaptia lReceip t=r ecoveryofl oan s+disinvestmen t s

d e e c o r p

c il b u p f o e t a t s l a u t c a e h

T account i sre lfected by ifsca lde ifci ta si tindicate sthe t

p i e c e r e h t n i d e t a e r c s e it il i b a

il -disbursement proces sof t he governmen.t A s ifsca lde ifcti i s s

t p i e c e r l a ti p a c g n it a e r c t b e d h g u o r h t d e c n a n

if o f the government , and ti s persistence t

b e d e h t s e t a r o ir e t e

d -GSDP raito leading to unsustainable increase in the committed d

n a t n e m y a p e r t b e d f o m r o f e h t n i e r u ti d n e p x

e interes tobilgaiton. In t he i niita lpe irod upto 7

8 9

1 -88 ,state has revenue surpluses which we re used fo rdischarging governmen tdeb t s a w l a ti p a c d e w o r r o b f o t r a p e l b a e z i s a d n a ’ s e c n a v d a d n a s n a o l t e n

‘ f o m r o f e h t n i s e it il i b a il

7 8 9 1 r e tf a y ll a c it s a r d d e g n a h c n o it a u ti s e h t t u B . e r u ti d n e p x e l a ti p a c g n i c n a n if r o f d e s

u - 88 .

. 1 e l b a

T Decomposiitono fGros sFisca lDeifcti r

a e

Y G FDinR sbn

(%o fGSDP) A spercentageo fFisca lDe ifcti ti

ci f e D e u n e v e

R Captia lOutaly Ne tLendnig NDCR 0

8 9

1 - 18 1.1 ( 3.30) - 75 2. 9 1.1 6 1.6 0 .0 1

8 9

1 - 28 1.0 ( 2.61) - 55 0. 111.9 3 8.6 0 .0 2

8 9

1 - 38 1.9 ( 4.21) - 82 3. 8 2.5 4 1.3 0 .0 3

8 9

1 - 48 1.3 ( 2.74) - 75 6. 8 3.6 7 3.1 0 .0 4

8 9

1 - 58 2.4 ( 4.37) - 81 2. 6 7.5 4 5.3 0 .0 5

8 9

1 - 68 2.3 ( 3.51) - 14 6. 8 7.8 5 8.3 0 .0 6

8 9

1 - 78 1.7 ( 2.47) - 99 5. 101.2 9 4.7 0 .0 7

8 9

1 - 88 2.2 ( 2.79) - 97 . 2 7.8 8 0.1 0 .0 8

8 9

1 - 98 2.9 ( 2.89) 0 .7 4 8.4 5 0.9 0 .0 9

8 9

1 - 09 3.9 ( 3.53) 2 4.2 3 3.8 4 2.0 0 .0 0

9 9

1 - 19 3 ( 6.9 2 ) .8 5 .2 4 8.2 4 6.6 0 .0 1

9 9

1 - 29 3.8 ( 2.33) 8 .5 3 8.9 5 2.5 0 .0 2

9 9

1 - 39 4.4 ( 2.54) 0 .5 5 1.4 4 8.2 0 .0 3

9 9

1 - 49 4.8 ( 2.34) - 91 6. 6 3.1 5 3.8 0 .0 4

9 9

1 - 59 5.3 ( 2.02) 7 3.1 3 8.7 - 81 1. 0 .0 5

9 9

1 - 69 9.9 (3.32) 3 5.2 2 9.0 3 5.8 0 .0 6

9 9

1 - 79 11.0 ( 3.09) 6 5.4 4 0.6 - 06 . 0 .0 7

9 9

1 - 89 11.3 ( 2.92) 6 3.8 4 3.7 - 57 . 0 .0 8

9 9

1 - 99 22.4 ( 5.13) 6 8.8 4 5.8 - 61 4. 0 .0 9

9 9

1 - 00 21.3 ( 4.35) 5 5.6 4 1.9 2 .5 0 .0

0 0 0

2 - 10 22.6 ( 4.11) 2 6.8 6 3.8 9 .4 0 .0 1

0 0

2 - 20 27.4 ( 4.52) 3 8.5 5 3.5 7 .9 0 .0 2

0 0

2 - 30 14.7 ( 2.22) 4 6.6 2 9.6 2 3.8 0 .0 3

0 0

2 - 40 29.3 ( 3.96) 9 .3 1 3.2 7 7.5 0 .0 4

0 0

2 - 50 12.1 ( 1.26) 2 1.4 7 4.4 4 .2 0 .0 5

0 0

2 - 60 2.9 ( 0.27) -424.1 563.6 - 53 9. 0 .0 6

0 0

2 - 70 -11.8 ( - 20 ) .9 134.9 -205.9 171.0 0 .0 7

0 0

2 - 80 12.6 ( 0.83) -173.2 266.8 6 .4 0 .0 8

0 0

2 - 90 65.6 ( 3.59) 3 1.7 6 8.5 - 30 . 0 .1 9

0 0

2 - 01 100.9 ( 4.51) 4 2.1 5 1.6 6 .1 0 .1 0

1 0

2 - 11 72.6 ( 2.79) 3 7.8 5 5.4 6 .7 0 .1 1

1 0

2 - 21 71.5 ( 2.39) 2 0.4 7 4.9 4 .6 0 .1 2

1 0

2 - 31 103.6 ( 3.03) 4 2.8 5 5.5 1 .6 0 .1 3

1 0

2 - 41 83.1 ( 2.14) 4 6.6 4 7.2 6 .1 0 .1 4

1 0

2 - 51 156.3 ( 3.59) 6 0.7 3 5.6 3 .6 0 .1 5

1 0

2 - 61 164.4 ( 3.38) 5 8.2 3 5.9 5 .9 0 .1 e

c r u o

S : RB IHandbook onstate’ s ifnance s2010 f o rdata upto2007-08 andRB ’I s s

t e g d u B f o y d u t S A s e c n a n i F e t a t

S (dfiferenti ssues)f o rothers . :

e t o

N ^ Negaitve( –)s igni ndicatess urplusi ndeifctii ndicator .s x Figures i n parentheses r epresen tpercentageof t hi sva irable t oGSDP a t

s e c ir p t n e r r u

c .

e h t m o r f t n e d i v e s

A table 1 ,Haryanaha sa highes t ifsca ldeifcti i n1997-98 bu tsince 6

0 0 2 o t p u d n e rt d r a w n w o d a n w o h s t i n e h

t -07 when state had a surplus .The ifsca lde ifci t e

h t o t e u d y l p r a h s d e s a e r c n i n i a g

a award o fsixth pay commission and increased pubilc c

o t g n i d n e p

s ounte r globa l recession . Howeve r correcitve measure s have ensured the n i a g a s a h t i t u b s r a e y r u o f t x e n e h t n i s ti m il e l b i s s i m r e p n i h ti w t i c if e d l a c s if e h t f o n o it c u d e r

h s e r h t D F G e h t d e s s o r

c oldmainlyduet oUDAYscheme .The ifsca lde ifci t tisel fmayno tbe .

h t w o r g c i m o n o c e d n a t n e m t s e v n i l a ti p a c s e c n a n if g n i w o r r o b f i m e l b o r p

a The useo fpubilc

s i e r u ti d n e p x e l a ti p a c e c n a n if o t t b e d

s i n e d r u b e h t e s u a c e b e l b a if it s u j

e r u t u f d n a t n e s e r p y b d e r a h s y ll a u q e

s n o it a r e n e

g (King , 1984 ) and that m

s n o it a r e n e g e r u t u

f ayhavean easie r y

lt n e r r u c f f o g n i y a p e m

it -incurred

e h t n a h t t b e

d presen tgeneraiton due g n i y a p e r n i e s a e r c n i t n e u q e s n o c o t

y ti c a p a

c (Cilngermayer ,1991 .) d

e s s u c s i d s

A eariler , ideally r o f d e s u e b d l u o h s s ti c if e d l a c s if e h t e

l b a t t u b e r u ti d n e p x e l a ti p a c g n i c n a n

if -1 depict stha tin 2015-16 ,only 35.9 percen to fthe e

r e w ) D F G ( s d n u f d e w o r r o

b used fo rcaptia lexpendtiure and a l arge par to fthe borrowed e

r e w s d n u

f used fo r ifnancing revenue de ifci t(58.2 percen)t .This i sagainst t he golden rule e

l b a t e h t m o r f t n e d i v e s A . s ti c if e d e u n e v e r o r e z f

o 1, t he state ha sbeen revenue de ifci tfo r s d n u f d e w o r r o b e h t t a h t e t a c i d n i y lr a e l c s d n e rt t n e c e r e h T . s r a e y l a i c n a n if e v it u c e s n o c 8 t s a l

. 3 t r a h

C Captia lOultaya sPercentageo fCaptia lReceipts

9 . 7 98 . 6 8

3 . 7 3

5 . 4 6

7 . 1 5

0 . 7 1

7 . 0 3 34.5

2 . 9 2

4 . 4 4

3 . 8 1

2 . 6 2 9 . 3 3

9 . 6 5

1 . 8 1

7 . 6

2 . 0 2 3 . 0 6

4 . 0 7

5 . 9 9

9 . 2 6 8 . 5 4 50.6

0 . 5 4 6 . 8 2 28.0

0 0 1

0 2

0 3

0 4

0 5

0 6

0 7

0 8

0 9

0 0 1

0 8 9 1 -

1

8 1985- 6

8 1990- 1

9 1995- 6

9 2000- 1

0 2005- 6

0 2010- 1

1 2015- 6 1

)%(stpieceR latipaC/yaltuO latipaC