IBPS Bank PO Prelims Mock Test - 8 - Banking Exams MCQ

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to increase tax devolution to 42 per cent of the shareable pool of taxes has increased the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without condition) to States. Estimates shows that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be more than 70 per cent of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States. Although this increase in the share of untied funds is a marked improvement in the structure of a transfer away from a conditional to an unconditional one, it is time that attention is paid to reform the transfer system by focussing on non-Finance Commission transfer to enable States to effectively utilise the enhanced untied fiscal space. This can only be done by reforming the coverage, content and architecture of the non-Finance Commission transfers and a further consolidation of schemes. This article discusses this important issue and provides a possible way forward keeping in view the recommendations made by the 14th commission in this regard.

A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore. This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the Centre’s contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in the first category are the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Swacch Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary education under the midday meal schemes and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) financed by the Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). Major schemes delinked from Central support are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the Backward Regions Grant Fund and Normal Central Assistance. The Union Budget does not provide the details of the additional contributions States have to make for schemes where Central support has been reduced. This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS). Despite this emphasis on restructuring and recommendations made by various committees in this regard, nothing much has happened on the ground. In fact, CSS and other conditional grants as a percentage of GDP have increased from 0.67 per cent in 2000-01 to 1.39 per cent in 2015-16. Post the 14th Commission’s recommendation, the reduction in grants to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution — of which many are CSS — is certainly a step in the right direction. However, this reduction in grants in quantum without clarity on the design, architecture and sharing pattern between the Union and States has the following implications for States: a) reducing the share of contribution of the Centre to CSS has the potential to reduce untied fiscal space available from higher tax devolution as States have to make a higher contribution to these schemes now; b) this reduction does not automatically imply that States are insulated from the conditionalities and ‘one size fits all’ CSS intervention and the uncertainties associated with CSS fund flow.

In the last decade, the proliferation of big-ticket CSS has emerged as the key fiscal strategy to transfer grants to States to achieve a certain outcome in a specific sector, especially in health, education, agriculture and rural development. Though the money allocated under CSS has declined, these schemes, if not reduced in numbers, and, in many cases, consolidated and restructured, may result in States having to fund these schemes with a higher matching contribution. And, they may have to bear the same burden of CSS conditionalities, reducing fiscal autonomy and the available untied fiscal space. Restructuring is not only important from the perspective of State finances. It is also about getting the expenditure priorities right for both the Union and the State governments. As articulated in the 14th commission’s report, “between 2002-05 and 2005-11, revenue expenditure by the Union Government on State List subjects increased from an average of 14 per cent to 20 per cent, and on Concurrent List subjects from an average of 13 per cent to 17 per cent. This implies a reduction in expenditure, in percentage terms, on Union List subjects. Expenditure functions under the Union List fall predominantly under General and Economic Services. The share of expenditure on these has progressively declined from 66.3 per cent in 2001-02 to 53.2 per cent in 2014-15(BE).” One of the primary reasons for this is the proliferation of CSS, especially in the social sector and on right-based spending. For better service delivery outcome, these need to change as most of these functions are primarily in the functional domain of the States. The Union government should move its focus from spending on overlapping functional domain to subjects that squarely fall in the functional domain of the Union, as in the Union List, and limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’ on subjects of national priority having a consideration of externality.

Q.What does the author suggest to the Union Government about the intervention in State or Concurrent List?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to increase tax devolution to 42 per cent of the shareable pool of taxes has increased the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without condition) to States. Estimates shows that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be more than 70 per cent of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States. Although this increase in the share of untied funds is a marked improvement in the structure of a transfer away from a conditional to an unconditional one, it is time that attention is paid to reform the transfer system by focussing on non-Finance Commission transfer to enable States to effectively utilise the enhanced untied fiscal space. This can only be done by reforming the coverage, content and architecture of the non-Finance Commission transfers and a further consolidation of schemes. This article discusses this important issue and provides a possible way forward keeping in view the recommendations made by the 14th commission in this regard.

A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore. This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the Centre’s contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in the first category are the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Swacch Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary education under the midday meal schemes and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) financed by the Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). Major schemes delinked from Central support are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the Backward Regions Grant Fund and Normal Central Assistance. The Union Budget does not provide the details of the additional contributions States have to make for schemes where Central support has been reduced. This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS). Despite this emphasis on restructuring and recommendations made by various committees in this regard, nothing much has happened on the ground. In fact, CSS and other conditional grants as a percentage of GDP have increased from 0.67 per cent in 2000-01 to 1.39 per cent in 2015-16. Post the 14th Commission’s recommendation, the reduction in grants to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution — of which many are CSS — is certainly a step in the right direction. However, this reduction in grants in quantum without clarity on the design, architecture and sharing pattern between the Union and States has the following implications for States: a) reducing the share of contribution of the Centre to CSS has the potential to reduce untied fiscal space available from higher tax devolution as States have to make a higher contribution to these schemes now; b) this reduction does not automatically imply that States are insulated from the conditionalities and ‘one size fits all’ CSS intervention and the uncertainties associated with CSS fund flow.

In the last decade, the proliferation of big-ticket CSS has emerged as the key fiscal strategy to transfer grants to States to achieve a certain outcome in a specific sector, especially in health, education, agriculture and rural development. Though the money allocated under CSS has declined, these schemes, if not reduced in numbers, and, in many cases, consolidated and restructured, may result in States having to fund these schemes with a higher matching contribution. And, they may have to bear the same burden of CSS conditionalities, reducing fiscal autonomy and the available untied fiscal space. Restructuring is not only important from the perspective of State finances. It is also about getting the expenditure priorities right for both the Union and the State governments. As articulated in the 14th commission’s report, “between 2002-05 and 2005-11, revenue expenditure by the Union Government on State List subjects increased from an average of 14 per cent to 20 per cent, and on Concurrent List subjects from an average of 13 per cent to 17 per cent. This implies a reduction in expenditure, in percentage terms, on Union List subjects. Expenditure functions under the Union List fall predominantly under General and Economic Services. The share of expenditure on these has progressively declined from 66.3 per cent in 2001-02 to 53.2 per cent in 2014-15(BE).” One of the primary reasons for this is the proliferation of CSS, especially in the social sector and on right-based spending. For better service delivery outcome, these need to change as most of these functions are primarily in the functional domain of the States. The Union government should move its focus from spending on overlapping functional domain to subjects that squarely fall in the functional domain of the Union, as in the Union List, and limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’ on subjects of national priority having a consideration of externality.

Q.What is the synonym of the word “proliferation”?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to increase tax devolution to 42 per cent of the shareable pool of taxes has increased the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without condition) to States. Estimates shows that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be more than 70 per cent of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States. Although this increase in the share of untied funds is a marked improvement in the structure of a transfer away from a conditional to an unconditional one, it is time that attention is paid to reform the transfer system by focussing on non-Finance Commission transfer to enable States to effectively utilise the enhanced untied fiscal space. This can only be done by reforming the coverage, content and architecture of the non-Finance Commission transfers and a further consolidation of schemes. This article discusses this important issue and provides a possible way forward keeping in view the recommendations made by the 14th commission in this regard.

A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore. This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the Centre’s contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in the first category are the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Swacch Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary education under the midday meal schemes and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) financed by the Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). Major schemes delinked from Central support are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the Backward Regions Grant Fund and Normal Central Assistance. The Union Budget does not provide the details of the additional contributions States have to make for schemes where Central support has been reduced. This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS). Despite this emphasis on restructuring and recommendations made by various committees in this regard, nothing much has happened on the ground. In fact, CSS and other conditional grants as a percentage of GDP have increased from 0.67 per cent in 2000-01 to 1.39 per cent in 2015-16. Post the 14th Commission’s recommendation, the reduction in grants to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution — of which many are CSS — is certainly a step in the right direction. However, this reduction in grants in quantum without clarity on the design, architecture and sharing pattern between the Union and States has the following implications for States: a) reducing the share of contribution of the Centre to CSS has the potential to reduce untied fiscal space available from higher tax devolution as States have to make a higher contribution to these schemes now; b) this reduction does not automatically imply that States are insulated from the conditionalities and ‘one size fits all’ CSS intervention and the uncertainties associated with CSS fund flow.

In the last decade, the proliferation of big-ticket CSS has emerged as the key fiscal strategy to transfer grants to States to achieve a certain outcome in a specific sector, especially in health, education, agriculture and rural development. Though the money allocated under CSS has declined, these schemes, if not reduced in numbers, and, in many cases, consolidated and restructured, may result in States having to fund these schemes with a higher matching contribution. And, they may have to bear the same burden of CSS conditionalities, reducing fiscal autonomy and the available untied fiscal space. Restructuring is not only important from the perspective of State finances. It is also about getting the expenditure priorities right for both the Union and the State governments. As articulated in the 14th commission’s report, “between 2002-05 and 2005-11, revenue expenditure by the Union Government on State List subjects increased from an average of 14 per cent to 20 per cent, and on Concurrent List subjects from an average of 13 per cent to 17 per cent. This implies a reduction in expenditure, in percentage terms, on Union List subjects. Expenditure functions under the Union List fall predominantly under General and Economic Services. The share of expenditure on these has progressively declined from 66.3 per cent in 2001-02 to 53.2 per cent in 2014-15(BE).” One of the primary reasons for this is the proliferation of CSS, especially in the social sector and on right-based spending. For better service delivery outcome, these need to change as most of these functions are primarily in the functional domain of the States. The Union government should move its focus from spending on overlapping functional domain to subjects that squarely fall in the functional domain of the Union, as in the Union List, and limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’ on subjects of national priority having a consideration of externality.

Q.What does the author mean by the phrase “limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’”?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to increase tax devolution to 42 per cent of the shareable pool of taxes has increased the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without condition) to States. Estimates shows that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be more than 70 per cent of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States. Although this increase in the share of untied funds is a marked improvement in the structure of a transfer away from a conditional to an unconditional one, it is time that attention is paid to reform the transfer system by focussing on non-Finance Commission transfer to enable States to effectively utilise the enhanced untied fiscal space. This can only be done by reforming the coverage, content and architecture of the non-Finance Commission transfers and a further consolidation of schemes. This article discusses this important issue and provides a possible way forward keeping in view the recommendations made by the 14th commission in this regard.

A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore. This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the Centre’s contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in the first category are the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Swacch Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary education under the midday meal schemes and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) financed by the Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). Major schemes delinked from Central support are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the Backward Regions Grant Fund and Normal Central Assistance. The Union Budget does not provide the details of the additional contributions States have to make for schemes where Central support has been reduced. This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS). Despite this emphasis on restructuring and recommendations made by various committees in this regard, nothing much has happened on the ground. In fact, CSS and other conditional grants as a percentage of GDP have increased from 0.67 per cent in 2000-01 to 1.39 per cent in 2015-16. Post the 14th Commission’s recommendation, the reduction in grants to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution — of which many are CSS — is certainly a step in the right direction. However, this reduction in grants in quantum without clarity on the design, architecture and sharing pattern between the Union and States has the following implications for States: a) reducing the share of contribution of the Centre to CSS has the potential to reduce untied fiscal space available from higher tax devolution as States have to make a higher contribution to these schemes now; b) this reduction does not automatically imply that States are insulated from the conditionalities and ‘one size fits all’ CSS intervention and the uncertainties associated with CSS fund flow.

In the last decade, the proliferation of big-ticket CSS has emerged as the key fiscal strategy to transfer grants to States to achieve a certain outcome in a specific sector, especially in health, education, agriculture and rural development. Though the money allocated under CSS has declined, these schemes, if not reduced in numbers, and, in many cases, consolidated and restructured, may result in States having to fund these schemes with a higher matching contribution. And, they may have to bear the same burden of CSS conditionalities, reducing fiscal autonomy and the available untied fiscal space. Restructuring is not only important from the perspective of State finances. It is also about getting the expenditure priorities right for both the Union and the State governments. As articulated in the 14th commission’s report, “between 2002-05 and 2005-11, revenue expenditure by the Union Government on State List subjects increased from an average of 14 per cent to 20 per cent, and on Concurrent List subjects from an average of 13 per cent to 17 per cent. This implies a reduction in expenditure, in percentage terms, on Union List subjects. Expenditure functions under the Union List fall predominantly under General and Economic Services. The share of expenditure on these has progressively declined from 66.3 per cent in 2001-02 to 53.2 per cent in 2014-15(BE).” One of the primary reasons for this is the proliferation of CSS, especially in the social sector and on right-based spending. For better service delivery outcome, these need to change as most of these functions are primarily in the functional domain of the States. The Union government should move its focus from spending on overlapping functional domain to subjects that squarely fall in the functional domain of the Union, as in the Union List, and limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’ on subjects of national priority having a consideration of externality.

Q.What is the synonym of the word “squarely”, according to the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to increase tax devolution to 42 per cent of the shareable pool of taxes has increased the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without condition) to States. Estimates shows that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be more than 70 per cent of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States. Although this increase in the share of untied funds is a marked improvement in the structure of a transfer away from a conditional to an unconditional one, it is time that attention is paid to reform the transfer system by focussing on non-Finance Commission transfer to enable States to effectively utilise the enhanced untied fiscal space. This can only be done by reforming the coverage, content and architecture of the non-Finance Commission transfers and a further consolidation of schemes. This article discusses this important issue and provides a possible way forward keeping in view the recommendations made by the 14th commission in this regard.

A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore. This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the Centre’s contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in the first category are the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Swacch Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary education under the midday meal schemes and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) financed by the Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). Major schemes delinked from Central support are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the Backward Regions Grant Fund and Normal Central Assistance. The Union Budget does not provide the details of the additional contributions States have to make for schemes where Central support has been reduced. This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS). Despite this emphasis on restructuring and recommendations made by various committees in this regard, nothing much has happened on the ground. In fact, CSS and other conditional grants as a percentage of GDP have increased from 0.67 per cent in 2000-01 to 1.39 per cent in 2015-16. Post the 14th Commission’s recommendation, the reduction in grants to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution — of which many are CSS — is certainly a step in the right direction. However, this reduction in grants in quantum without clarity on the design, architecture and sharing pattern between the Union and States has the following implications for States: a) reducing the share of contribution of the Centre to CSS has the potential to reduce untied fiscal space available from higher tax devolution as States have to make a higher contribution to these schemes now; b) this reduction does not automatically imply that States are insulated from the conditionalities and ‘one size fits all’ CSS intervention and the uncertainties associated with CSS fund flow.

In the last decade, the proliferation of big-ticket CSS has emerged as the key fiscal strategy to transfer grants to States to achieve a certain outcome in a specific sector, especially in health, education, agriculture and rural development. Though the money allocated under CSS has declined, these schemes, if not reduced in numbers, and, in many cases, consolidated and restructured, may result in States having to fund these schemes with a higher matching contribution. And, they may have to bear the same burden of CSS conditionalities, reducing fiscal autonomy and the available untied fiscal space. Restructuring is not only important from the perspective of State finances. It is also about getting the expenditure priorities right for both the Union and the State governments. As articulated in the 14th commission’s report, “between 2002-05 and 2005-11, revenue expenditure by the Union Government on State List subjects increased from an average of 14 per cent to 20 per cent, and on Concurrent List subjects from an average of 13 per cent to 17 per cent. This implies a reduction in expenditure, in percentage terms, on Union List subjects. Expenditure functions under the Union List fall predominantly under General and Economic Services. The share of expenditure on these has progressively declined from 66.3 per cent in 2001-02 to 53.2 per cent in 2014-15(BE).” One of the primary reasons for this is the proliferation of CSS, especially in the social sector and on right-based spending. For better service delivery outcome, these need to change as most of these functions are primarily in the functional domain of the States. The Union government should move its focus from spending on overlapping functional domain to subjects that squarely fall in the functional domain of the Union, as in the Union List, and limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’ on subjects of national priority having a consideration of externality.

Q.What is the synonym of the word “predominantly”?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to increase tax devolution to 42 per cent of the shareable pool of taxes has increased the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without condition) to States. Estimates shows that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be more than 70 per cent of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States. Although this increase in the share of untied funds is a marked improvement in the structure of a transfer away from a conditional to an unconditional one, it is time that attention is paid to reform the transfer system by focussing on non-Finance Commission transfer to enable States to effectively utilise the enhanced untied fiscal space. This can only be done by reforming the coverage, content and architecture of the non-Finance Commission transfers and a further consolidation of schemes. This article discusses this important issue and provides a possible way forward keeping in view the recommendations made by the 14th commission in this regard.

A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore. This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the Centre’s contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in the first category are the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Swacch Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary education under the midday meal schemes and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) financed by the Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). Major schemes delinked from Central support are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the Backward Regions Grant Fund and Normal Central Assistance. The Union Budget does not provide the details of the additional contributions States have to make for schemes where Central support has been reduced. This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS). Despite this emphasis on restructuring and recommendations made by various committees in this regard, nothing much has happened on the ground. In fact, CSS and other conditional grants as a percentage of GDP have increased from 0.67 per cent in 2000-01 to 1.39 per cent in 2015-16. Post the 14th Commission’s recommendation, the reduction in grants to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution — of which many are CSS — is certainly a step in the right direction. However, this reduction in grants in quantum without clarity on the design, architecture and sharing pattern between the Union and States has the following implications for States: a) reducing the share of contribution of the Centre to CSS has the potential to reduce untied fiscal space available from higher tax devolution as States have to make a higher contribution to these schemes now; b) this reduction does not automatically imply that States are insulated from the conditionalities and ‘one size fits all’ CSS intervention and the uncertainties associated with CSS fund flow.

In the last decade, the proliferation of big-ticket CSS has emerged as the key fiscal strategy to transfer grants to States to achieve a certain outcome in a specific sector, especially in health, education, agriculture and rural development. Though the money allocated under CSS has declined, these schemes, if not reduced in numbers, and, in many cases, consolidated and restructured, may result in States having to fund these schemes with a higher matching contribution. And, they may have to bear the same burden of CSS conditionalities, reducing fiscal autonomy and the available untied fiscal space. Restructuring is not only important from the perspective of State finances. It is also about getting the expenditure priorities right for both the Union and the State governments. As articulated in the 14th commission’s report, “between 2002-05 and 2005-11, revenue expenditure by the Union Government on State List subjects increased from an average of 14 per cent to 20 per cent, and on Concurrent List subjects from an average of 13 per cent to 17 per cent. This implies a reduction in expenditure, in percentage terms, on Union List subjects. Expenditure functions under the Union List fall predominantly under General and Economic Services. The share of expenditure on these has progressively declined from 66.3 per cent in 2001-02 to 53.2 per cent in 2014-15(BE).” One of the primary reasons for this is the proliferation of CSS, especially in the social sector and on right-based spending. For better service delivery outcome, these need to change as most of these functions are primarily in the functional domain of the States. The Union government should move its focus from spending on overlapping functional domain to subjects that squarely fall in the functional domain of the Union, as in the Union List, and limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’ on subjects of national priority having a consideration of externality.

Q. What is the antonym of the word “elementary”?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to increase tax devolution to 42 per cent of the shareable pool of taxes has increased the flow of untied resources (or resources transferred without condition) to States. Estimates shows that post the 14th commission award, the untied statutory transfers would be more than 70 per cent of the aggregate resource transfers from the Union to the States. Although this increase in the share of untied funds is a marked improvement in the structure of a transfer away from a conditional to an unconditional one, it is time that attention is paid to reform the transfer system by focussing on non-Finance Commission transfer to enable States to effectively utilise the enhanced untied fiscal space. This can only be done by reforming the coverage, content and architecture of the non-Finance Commission transfers and a further consolidation of schemes. This article discusses this important issue and provides a possible way forward keeping in view the recommendations made by the 14th commission in this regard.

A major issue, post Budget 2015-16, is the sharp decline in allocations to the social sector in the form of various conditional grants to the States. This decline has happened to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution. As per the Budget estimates, enhanced tax devolution should result in an increase in the flow of untied funds to the tune of Rs.1,86,150 crore and a reduced flow of grants to the tune of Rs.87,730 crore. This decline in grants has happened in two categories: in a specified list of schemes where the Centre’s contribution has been reduced, implying a corresponding increase in contribution by the States and for a set of schemes where Central support has been withdrawn. Important schemes in the first category are the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Swacch Bharat Abhiyaan and allocation for elementary education under the midday meal schemes and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) financed by the Gross Budgetary Support (GBS). Major schemes delinked from Central support are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, the Backward Regions Grant Fund and Normal Central Assistance. The Union Budget does not provide the details of the additional contributions States have to make for schemes where Central support has been reduced. This change in the structure of grants has also to be viewed in the context of a restructuring of Centrally sponsored schemes (CSS). Despite this emphasis on restructuring and recommendations made by various committees in this regard, nothing much has happened on the ground. In fact, CSS and other conditional grants as a percentage of GDP have increased from 0.67 per cent in 2000-01 to 1.39 per cent in 2015-16. Post the 14th Commission’s recommendation, the reduction in grants to accommodate a large increase in tax devolution — of which many are CSS — is certainly a step in the right direction. However, this reduction in grants in quantum without clarity on the design, architecture and sharing pattern between the Union and States has the following implications for States: a) reducing the share of contribution of the Centre to CSS has the potential to reduce untied fiscal space available from higher tax devolution as States have to make a higher contribution to these schemes now; b) this reduction does not automatically imply that States are insulated from the conditionalities and ‘one size fits all’ CSS intervention and the uncertainties associated with CSS fund flow.

In the last decade, the proliferation of big-ticket CSS has emerged as the key fiscal strategy to transfer grants to States to achieve a certain outcome in a specific sector, especially in health, education, agriculture and rural development. Though the money allocated under CSS has declined, these schemes, if not reduced in numbers, and, in many cases, consolidated and restructured, may result in States having to fund these schemes with a higher matching contribution. And, they may have to bear the same burden of CSS conditionalities, reducing fiscal autonomy and the available untied fiscal space. Restructuring is not only important from the perspective of State finances. It is also about getting the expenditure priorities right for both the Union and the State governments. As articulated in the 14th commission’s report, “between 2002-05 and 2005-11, revenue expenditure by the Union Government on State List subjects increased from an average of 14 per cent to 20 per cent, and on Concurrent List subjects from an average of 13 per cent to 17 per cent. This implies a reduction in expenditure, in percentage terms, on Union List subjects. Expenditure functions under the Union List fall predominantly under General and Economic Services. The share of expenditure on these has progressively declined from 66.3 per cent in 2001-02 to 53.2 per cent in 2014-15(BE).” One of the primary reasons for this is the proliferation of CSS, especially in the social sector and on right-based spending. For better service delivery outcome, these need to change as most of these functions are primarily in the functional domain of the States. The Union government should move its focus from spending on overlapping functional domain to subjects that squarely fall in the functional domain of the Union, as in the Union List, and limit its intervention on the ‘State List’ and ‘Concurrent List’ on subjects of national priority having a consideration of externality.

Q. What is the antonym of the word “devolution”?

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

New technology has led directly to (11) standards of living, yet science tends to follow market forces as well as to (12) them. It is not surprising that the rich get richer in a continuing cycle of (13) while the poorest are often left behind. A special (14) should be made by the powerhouses of world science to address the unmet challenges of the poor. Ending (15) poverty can relieve many of the pressures on the environment. When impoverished households are (16) (17) on their farms, for example, they face less pressure to cut down neighbouring forests in (18) of new farmland. Still, even as extreme poverty ends, we must not fuel prosperity with a lack of (19) for industrial pollution and the (20) burning of fossil fuels.

Directions: Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.

(A) For other wishes, it enlists the help of those who make or own what the child desires.
(B) It grants some wishes with its own funds depending upon the availability of funds.
(C) I was deeply moved when I learnt about the activity of “Make – a Wish foundation”.
(D) From parents, friends, or hospital attendants, the foundation learns about the child’s wish for anything from a special toy to a visit to Disneyland.
(E) I am sure you also now must have been moved by the noble act of the foundation.
(F) It grants the wishes of children who are terminally ilL

Q. Which of the following should be the FOURTH sentence after rearrangement?

Directions: Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.

(A) For other wishes, it enlists the help of those who make or own what the child desires.
(B) It grants some wishes with its own funds depending upon the availability of funds.
(C) I was deeply moved when I learnt about the activity of “Make – a Wish foundation”.
(D) From parents, friends, or hospital attendants, the foundation learns about the child’s wish for anything from a special toy to a visit to Disneyland.
(E) I am sure you also now must have been moved by the noble act of the foundation.
(F) It grants the wishes of children who are terminally ilL

Q. Which of the following should be the SIXTH (LAST) sentence after rearrangement?

Directions: Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.

(A) For other wishes, it enlists the help of those who make or own what the child desires.
(B) It grants some wishes with its own funds depending upon the availability of funds.
(C) I was deeply moved when I learnt about the activity of “Make – a Wish foundation”.
(D) From parents, friends, or hospital attendants, the foundation learns about the child’s wish for anything from a special toy to a visit to Disneyland.
(E) I am sure you also now must have been moved by the noble act of the foundation.
(F) It grants the wishes of children who are terminally ilL

Q. Which of the following should be the SECOND sentence after rearrangement? ’

Directions: Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.

(A) For other wishes, it enlists the help of those who make or own what the child desires.
(B) It grants some wishes with its own funds depending upon the availability of funds.
(C) I was deeply moved when I learnt about the activity of “Make – a Wish foundation”.
(D) From parents, friends, or hospital attendants, the foundation learns about the child’s wish for anything from a special toy to a visit to Disneyland.
(E) I am sure you also now must have been moved by the noble act of the foundation.
(F) It grants the wishes of children who are terminally ilL

Q. Which of the following should be the THIRD sentence after rearrangement?

Directions: Rearrange the following six sentences (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) in the proper sequence to form a meaningful paragraph; then answer the questions given below them.

(A) For other wishes, it enlists the help of those who make or own what the child desires.
(B) It grants some wishes with its own funds depending upon the availability of funds.
(C) I was deeply moved when I learnt about the activity of “Make – a Wish foundation”.
(D) From parents, friends, or hospital attendants, the foundation learns about the child’s wish for anything from a special toy to a visit to Disneyland.
(E) I am sure you also now must have been moved by the noble act of the foundation.
(F) It grants the wishes of children who are terminally ilL

Q. Which of the following should be the FIRST sentence after rearrangement?

Directions: Read each sentence to find out whether there is any error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error the answer is (5). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.) 

You may not know it 1)/ but this engine is 2) / claimed to have twice 3) / as powerful as the previous one. 4) / No error 5

Directions: Read each sentence to find out whether there is any error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error the answer is (5). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.) 

Nothing ever becomes real 1)/ till it is experienced. 2) / Even a proverb is no proverb to you 3)/ till your life has illustrated with it. 4)/ No error 5)

Directions: Read each sentence to find out whether there is any error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error the answer is (5). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.) 

I remember my childhood days 1)/ when I was used to go 2) to the farm with my father 3) / and help him in his work. 4)/ No error 5)

Directions: Read each sentence to find out whether there is any error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error the answer is (5). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.) 

I missed the last train 1) / which I usually catch 2) / and have to stay at the station 3) / on my way back home yesterday. 4) / No error 5)

Directions: Read each sentence to find out whether there is any error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error the answer is (5). (Ignore errors of punctuation, if any.) 

Suresh babu, who is living 1) / in this town since 1955, 2)/ is a well-known scholar of history 3) / and a distinguished musician. 4) / No error 5)