Chapter 5shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3517/15/15... · · 2015-12-04Chapter-5: Analysis and Interpretation 5.1 Introduction ... This vicious cycle leads to poor delivery

Chapter – 5

Analysis and Interpretation

Chapter-5: Analysis and

Interpretation

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Growth Rate Analysis of Major Financial

Components of Selected Municipal Corporations

5.3 Ratio Analysis

5.4 Analysis of Variance

5.5 Regression Analysis

5. Analysis and Interpretation

5.1 Introduction

To ensure transparency and give a correct picture of assets

and liabilities, municipal corporations has introduced the accrual

based accounting system; presently, a mix of cash based system

and accrual based sys tem is being followed. The system involves

the revenue function (receipt of taxes, charges, loans and grants)

and the expenditure function (release of funds against

establishment, works and supplies).

The corporation maintains its accounts in the form of funds;

the income and expenditure items are indicated under each fund

account. There is a municipal general fund under which the normal

income and expenditure (revenue and capital) items are listed.

Apart from this, there are separate fund accounts for the loans,

anamat (public deposits), capital grants including contributions

from the corporation and tasalmaat (advances). Additionally, the

gas project is maintained as an individual entity and accounting

for the same is maintained separately with that of th e corporation.

The corporation maintains its assets in the form of fixed assets,

deposits, capital works-in-progress, investments in sinking fund

etc.; these are accounted under the anamat fund. The corporation

also holds a record of its current assets inc luding stores and spares

in hand, bank balance and cash balance. The loans and advances

paid to the employees and other parties are also accounted for as

assets.

As part of their liabilities, municipal corporations maintain a

tasalmat fund, consisting of revolving funds for specific purposes.

The reserves and surpluses contained by the corporation include

income from capital receipts and credit balance from revenue

income. In addition to these, there are current liabilities in the

form of sundry creditors , deposits received, employee related

liabilities and other liabilities.

Municipal finances hold the key to the overall status and

progress of service delivery in right direction. Poor finances of

municipal corporation results in poor basic services, low capital

investment, low credibility of municipal corporation, poor revenue

collection efficiency, corruption and the lack of innovation in

resource mobilization. This vicious cycle leads to poor delivery

and low quality of services, which will hamper the g rowth

potential of Municipal Corporation. Here, understanding the

structure or pattern of finance of Municipal Corporation and its

growth holds greater promise in the move towards improving the

municipal revenue.

The analysis of municipal finances first l ooks at the current

financial status of municipal bodies in providing civic amenities,

which is carried out in terms of current spending vis -à-vis the

standard/norm. The revenue of expenditure sides of municipal

finance are then analysed in terms of the gr owth and their

normalized indicators are used to benchmark the cities. The

performance is also measured through relative analysis of the

Municipal Corporations in a cross section in terms of absolute

figures and their growth. Although, the debt/borrowed fu nds can

play an important role, it is not examined here as only few of them

actually have gone to market and made borrowings. Therefore,

debt sustainability of the local governments is not looked upon in

this study.

5.2 Growth Rate Analysis of Major Financial

Components of Selected Municipal

Corporations

Following tables indicates the growth rates of study

indicators of all three Municipal Corporations for the period of ten

years i.e. from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Municipal Corporations are expected to render a minimum

level of services to citizens in order to ensure providing a

minimum standard of living to citizens. To understand the above

situation, per capita revenue and expenditure are compared with

growth in total receipts and expenditures to see whet her there are

any inherent constraints to the provision of services before the

Municipal Corporations.

Table 1.1: Growth Rate Of Total Income (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years

Surat Vadodara Ahmedabad

Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 37691.59 - 19616.66 - 56611.80 -

2000-2001 40036.14 6.22 21029.12 7.20 56258.44 -0.62

2001-2002 41543.76 3.77 20029.64 -4.75 56283.24 0.04

2002-2003 49403.01 18.92 21871.34 9.19 60898.52 8.20

2003-2004 52976.51 7.23 22538.82 3.05 67350.15 10.59

2004-2005 62041.62 17.11 27054.54 20.04 78379.07 16.38

2005-2006 67347.26 8.55 28478.57 5.26 87698.00 11.89

2006-2007 80244.69 19.15 34018.04 19.45 110787.53 26.33

2007-2008 89658.00 11.73 44764.54 31.59 136622.66 23.32

2008-2009 103888.00 15.87 57352.20 28.12 143077.71 4.72

Average 62483.06 12.06 29675.35 13.24 85396.71 11.21

SD 22633.74 5.87 12479.58 12.18 33502.03 9.48

Above table indicate growth rate of total income of all three

Municipal Corporations for the period of ten years data fro m

1999-2000 to 2008-2009. Overall growth rate, during this period

has been shown by taking average growth rate of all consecutive

years.

In the Surat Municipal Corporations growth rate is vary from

3.77 percent in the year 2001-2002 to 19.15 percent in the year

2006-2007 with an average growth rate 12.06 percentage. Standard

deviation (5.87) indicates consistency in the growth rates during

the taken period of time.

The variation in the growth rates for Vadodara Municipal

Corporation is found -4.75 percent in the year 2001-2002 to 28.12

percent in the year 2008-2009. Standard deviation (12.18)

indicates non-homogeneity in the growth rate of total income in

Chart 1.1: Growth Rate Of Total Income

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Ra

te


Vadodara Municipal Corporation. Looking to the growth rate data

average growth rate is calculated 13 .24 percentages during of the

year 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

According to the data of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation

growth rate of total income, -2.82 percent found in the year 2000-

2001 and maximum growth rate found 23.58 percent in the year

2006-2007 with an average growth rate 8.75 percentages. Standard

deviation 9.27 of growth rate of total income indicate high

inconsistency during define period.

Table 1.2: Growth Rate of Per Capita Income (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 1659.53 1542.34 1644.62

2000-2001 1644.98 -0.88 1609.91 4.38 1598.21 -2.82

2001-2002 1592.88 -3.17 1493.07 -7.26 1563.55 -2.17

2002-2003 1767.67 10.97 1587.47 6.32 1654.35 5.81

2003-2004 1768.88 0.07 1592.90 0.34 1789.15 8.15

2004-2005 1933.16 9.29 1861.75 16.88 2036.08 13.80

2005-2006 1958.28 1.30 1908.20 2.50 2227.78 9.41

2006-2007 2177.40 11.19 2219.42 16.31 2752.07 23.53

2007-2008 2270.29 4.27 2843.74 28.13 3318.78 20.59

2008-2009 2454.86 8.13 3547.57 24.75 3398.72 2.41

Average 1922.79 4.57 2020.64 10.26 2198.33 8.75

SD 293.09 5.48 677.64 11.86 712.05 9.27

Above table shows the per capita income of Surat, Vadodara

and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations for the define period of

ten years using the projected Population from the year 1999 -2000

to 2008-2009 by taking the reference of Census of India.

In the year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 the per capita income

is found to be negative and highest 11.19 percentage in the year

2006-2007. Average per capita income for the period 1999-2000 to

2008-2009 was 4.57 percentages with absolute figure of Rs

1922.79. The lowest per capita income was Rs. 1592 in the year

2001-2002 and highest Rs. 2454.86 in the year 2008 -2009.

According to per capita income growth rate, in Vadodara

Municipal Corporation the variation is found -7.26 percent to

28.13 percent in the year 2001-2002 & 2007-2008 respectively.

The lowest per capita income Rs 1493.07 was found in the year

Chart 1.2: Growth Rate of Per Capita Income

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Ra

te


2001-2002 and highest was found Rs. 3547 .57 in the year 2008-

2009. The average per capita income is Rs. 2020.64 with average

growth rate 10.26 percent in Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

The average per capita income during the period from 1999 -

2000 to 2008-2009 is Rs. 2198.33 and average growt h rate is 8.75

in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Looking to the lowest and

highest value of per capita income and growth rate, per capita

income was found Rs. 1563.55 as a lowest in the year 2001 -2002

and Rs. 3398.72 as a highest in the year 2008 -2009. As per growth

rate -2.82 percent as a lowest in the year 2000-2001 and 23.53

percent highest in the year 2006-2007.

Looking to the standard deviation value of all three

Municipal Corporations, consistent increase was found in per

capita income.

The level of expenditure is, to some extent, reflective of the

level of services rendered by Municipal Corporations. While the

trend in per capita expenditure would provide first approximation

of the level as services rendered by a municipal government, a

further segregation into discretionary and non-discretionary

components, relative share of revenue and capital expenditure,

share of establishment, administrative, wages -salaries as a

proportion of total revenue expenditure would reveal the quality of

expenditure and ability of local bodies to meet its stated

objectives.

Following tables indicates the year wise expenditure

growth rates as well as per capita expenditure growth rates.

Table 1.3: Growth Rate of Expenditure (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 23512.02 18268.41 43299.25

2000-2001 22995.83 -2.20 18294.21 0.14 47898.55 10.62

2001-2002 23355.66 1.56 18395.89 0.56 47261.93 -1.33

2002-2003 23904.11 2.35 19167.73 4.20 47406.43 0.31

2003-2004 25139.38 5.17 19535.85 1.92 47168.50 -0.50

2004-2005 26392.43 4.98 20195.36 3.38 49875.97 5.74

2005-2006 28816.07 9.18 20962.12 3.80 53737.70 7.74

2006-2007 34910.61 21.15 28483.90 35.88 68420.36 27.32

2007-2008 40811.53 16.90 29919.44 5.04 76675.34 12.07

2008-2009 48936.00 19.91 38237.29 27.80 78672.91 2.61

Average 29877.36 8.78 23146.02 9.19 56041.69 7.17

SD 8881.48 8.55 6785.19 13.10 13306.40 8.97

Chart 1.3: Growth Rate of Expenditure

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate


Table indicates the growth rates of Revenue Expenditure for

the period of ten years from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009 for Surat,

Vadodara and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations.

In Surat compared to 1999-2000 expenditure was low

indicated by -2.20 percent negative growth rate, and heights

percentage growth rates 21.15 percent in the year 200 6-2007

compare to the previous year. With the average growth rate 8.78

percent, Surat municipal corporations found consistent in last few

years compare to beginning years of the duration.

For the Vadodara municipal corporations, growth rate found

to consistent except the year 2006-2007 and 2008-2009. In the

year mentioned with heights growth rates, there was a tremendous

rise found in expenditure with 35.88 and 27.80 percent of growth.

The average growth rate of expenditure is 9.19 percents.

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was not that consistent in

expenditure during the period. With the variation, -1.33 percent in

the year 2001-2002 to 27.22 percent in the year 2006 -2007. The

average growth rate of expenditure is 7.17 percent form the period

999-2000 to 2008-2009.

The Standard deviations overall growth rates for all three

municipal corporations can not be predicted.

Table 1.4: Growth Rate Of Per Capita Expenditure (Rs. In

Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 1035.21 1436.34 1257.88

2000-2001 944.84 -8.73 1400.54 -2.49 1360.72 8.18

2001-2002 895.51 -5.22 1371.28 -2.09 1312.94 -3.51

2002-2003 855.30 -4.49 1391.24 1.46 1287.83 -1.91

2003-2004 839.40 -1.86 1380.67 -0.76 1253.03 -2.70

2004-2005 822.36 -2.03 1389.74 0.66 1295.65 3.40

2005-2006 837.89 1.89 1404.56 1.07 1365.09 5.36

2006-2007 947.28 13.06 1858.36 32.31 1699.63 24.51

2007-2008 1033.41 9.09 1900.68 2.28 1862.57 9.59

2008-2009 1156.35 11.90 2365.20 24.44 1868.82 0.34

Average 936.76 1.51 1589.86 6.32 1456.42 4.80

SD 109.60 7.98 339.06 12.76 251.07 8.77

In the table above shows the per capita expenditure by

respective Municipal Corporations.

There is a high variation found in growth rate of per capita

expenditure in Surat Municipal Corporation. Per capita

expenditure varies from Rs. 822.36 to Rs. 1156.35. The average

per capita expenditure is Rs. 936.76 with an average growth rate

1.51 percent.

In the Vadodara, the per capita expenditure varies from Rs.

1371.28 during the year 2001-2002 to Rs. 2365.23 in the year

2008-2009. Again there was no linear increase found in the per

capita expenditure growth rate. The average per capita expenditure

of Vadodara Municipal Corporation is Rs. 1589.86 with average

growth rate 6.32 percent.

Chart 1.4: Growth Rate Of Per Capita Expenditure

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate


In the Ahmedabad, the per capita expenditure varies from

Rs. 1257.88 during the year 1999-2000 to Rs. 1868.82 in the year

2008-2009. Again there was no linear increase found in the per

capita expenditure growth rate. The average per c apita expenditure

of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation is Rs. 1456.42 with average

growth rate 4.80 percent.

The high Standard Deviation value indicate that there was no

consistency in the per capital expenditure growth rates amongst

the all three Municipal Corporations.

Table 1.5: Growth Rate of Income over Expenditure (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 14179.56 1348.25 13312.55

2000-2001 17040.31 20.18 2734.91 102.85 8359.90 -37.20

2001-2002 18188.10 6.74 1633.74 -40.26 9021.31 7.91

2002-2003 25498.90 40.20 2703.61 65.49 13492.09 49.56

2003-2004 27837.13 9.17 3002.97 11.07 20181.65 49.58

2004-2005 35649.18 28.06 6859.17 128.41 28503.10 41.23

2005-2006 38531.19 8.08 7516.45 9.58 33960.30 19.15

2006-2007 45334.08 17.66 5534.14 -26.37 42367.17 24.75

2007-2008 -39914.95 -188.05 14845.10 168.25 59947.32 41.49

2008-2009 -47897.12 20.00 19114.92 28.76 64404.80 7.44

Average 13444.64 -4.22 6529.33 49.75 29355.02 22.66

SD 31863.93 69.75 5980.54 71.36 20556.22 27.83

Table shows the growth rate of Income over Expenditure for

the period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Growth rate varies from -188.05 percent to 40.20 percent in

Surat municipal corporations in the year 2007 -2008 and 2002-2003

respectively.


Vadodara municipal corporations in the year 2001 -2002 and 2007-

2008 respectively.


Ahmedabad municipal corporations in the year 2000-2001 and

2003-2004 respectively.

Chart 1.5: Growth Rate of Income over Expenditure

-250.00

-200.00

-150.00

-100.00

-50.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate


Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corporations

having average growth rate 69.75, 71.36 and 27.83 percent

respectively.

The revenue performance of a municipal corporation can be

observed in terms of growth of tax revenue, growth of total (tax

and non-tax) revenue, composition of tax and non -tax performers

amongst the municipal corporations, shared revenue to total

revenue (decentralization) and transfers from state government to

total revenue receipts (dependency).

Growth of tax revenue is an important indicator which

reflects the strength of a municipal corporation to undertake

service provisioning responsibilities.

Table 1.6: Growth Rate of Income from Tax (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 29770.78 14817.88 42584.04

2000-2001 31638.85 6.27 16349.95 10.34 42235.01 -0.82

2001-2002 33324.30 5.33 15551.19 -4.89 42964.96 1.73

2002-2003 39488.40 18.50 17878.11 14.96 47586.51 10.76

2003-2004 42066.87 6.53 19158.41 7.16 52056.57 9.39

2004-2005 49423.06 17.49 23899.66 24.75 61251.79 17.66

2005-2006 52179.01 5.58 25029.28 4.73 72686.18 18.67

2006-2007 62127.32 19.07 29045.94 16.05 91249.94 25.54

2007-2008 69415.33 11.73 24575.74 -15.39 103427.29 13.35

2008-2009 80432.53 15.87 31486.37 28.12 105282.30 1.79

Average 48986.65 11.82 21779.25 9.54 66132.46 10.90

SD 17136.18 5.97 5856.87 13.73 25442.11 8.90

Table shows the growth rate of Income from Tax for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Growth rate varies from 5.33 percent to 19.07 percent in


respectively.


Vadodara municipal corporations in the year 2007-2008 and 2008-

2009 respectively.

Chart 1.6: Growth Rate of Income from Tax

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate



Ahmedabad municipal corporations in the year 2000 -2001 and


Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corpora tions


respectively.

Growth rate of revenue receipts is an indication of healthy

state of finances of municipal corporations.

Table 1.7: Growth Rate of Total revenue (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 36287.92 16176.26 46711.45

2000-2001 38715.02 6.69 17970.21 11.09 46054.70 -1.41

2001-2002 40168.91 3.76 17196.69 -4.30 47346.56 2.81

2002-2003 47593.32 18.48 18659.87 8.51 51980.45 9.79

2003-2004 51242.63 7.67 19969.28 7.02 59116.07 13.73

2004-2005 60352.46 17.78 24705.54 23.72 69255.75 17.15

2005-2006 65496.03 8.52 25940.38 5.00 79360.17 14.59

2006-2007 78746.90 20.23 30518.33 17.65 101317.54 27.67

2007-2008 87984.51 11.73 31175.19 2.15 124855.62 23.23

2008-2009 101948.90 15.87 39941.57 28.12 128687.25 3.07

Average 60853.66 12.30 24225.33 10.99 75468.56 12.29

SD 22500.70 5.96 7749.40 10.43 32137.40 9.72

Table shows the growth rate of total revenue for the per iod

from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.


Vadodara municipal corpora tions in the year 2001-2002 and 2008-

2009 respectively.




Char 1.7: Growth Rate of Total Revenue

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Growth rate of composition of tax and non-tax revenue

indicates one way of establishing creditworthiness.

Table 1.8: Growth Rate of Total (Tax and Non -tax) Revenue (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 32104.04 15321.97 44651.06

2000-2001 34052.33 6.07 16781.86 9.53 44702.78 0.12

2001-2002 36111.91 6.05 15786.63 -5.93 46112.04 3.15

2002-2003 42595.88 17.96 18214.41 15.38 50556.22 9.64

2003-2004 45717.89 7.33 19564.60 7.41 57153.15 13.05

2004-2005 53657.98 17.37 24343.85 24.43 66712.73 16.73

2005-2006 56679.92 5.63 25533.13 4.89 77068.19 15.52

2006-2007 66424.18 17.19 29957.04 17.33 96724.75 25.51

2007-2008 74216.24 11.73 25267.06 -15.66 110886.61 14.64

2008-2009 85995.42 15.87 32372.09 28.12 116168.88 4.76

Average 52755.58 11.69 22314.26 9.50 71073.64 11.46

SD 18179.81 5.46 6048.42 13.97 27814.84 7.91

Table shows the growth rate of total revenue i. e. composite

of tax and non tax for the period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2007 respectively.




Chart 1.8: Growth Rate of Total (Tax and Non-tax) Revenue

-20.00

-15.00

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Apart from the measures of revenue growth and composition,

the revenue performance of municipal corporations can be gauged

through other than tax income.

Table 1.9: Growth Rate of other Revenue Income (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 4183.88 854.29 2060.39

2000-2001 4662.69 11.44 1188.36 39.10 1351.92 -34.39

2001-2002 4057.00 -12.99 1410.06 18.66 1234.52 -8.68

2002-2003 4997.44 23.18 445.46 -68.41 1424.23 15.37

2003-2004 5524.74 10.55 404.68 -9.16 1962.92 37.82

2004-2005 6694.48 21.17 361.70 -10.62 2543.02 29.55

2005-2006 8816.11 31.69 407.25 12.59 2291.98 -9.87

2006-2007 12322.72 39.77 561.26 37.82 4592.79 100.39

2007-2008 13768.26 11.73 5908.13 952.66 13969.01 204.15

2008-2009 15953.48 15.87 7569.48 28.12 12518.37 -10.38

Average 8098.08 16.94 1911.07 111.20 4394.92 35.99

SD 4395.46 14.96 2598.84 317.29 4772.40 74.24

Table shows the growth rate of other revenue income for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Growth rate varies -12.99 percent to 39.77 percent in Surat

municipal corporations in the year 2001-2002 and 2006-2007

respectively.

Growth rate varies -68.41 percent to 952.66 percent in


2008 respectively.

Chart 1.9: Growth Rate of other Revenue Income

-200.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate


Growth rate varies -34.39 percent to 204.15 percent in





respectively.

Establishment expenditure includes salary & wages,

allowances, reimbursements, employee welfare, terminal bene fits

and other employee costs.

Table 1.10: Growth Rate of Establishment (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 15507.64 10098.12 28540.52

2000-2001 14150.24 -8.75 9392.68 -6.99 31395.10 10.00

2001-2002 14850.10 4.95 9470.13 0.82 30389.77 -3.20

2002-2003 15800.40 6.40 9793.56 3.42 30548.59 0.52

2003-2004 16759.23 6.07 10093.70 3.06 31222.08 2.20

2004-2005 17693.26 5.57 10339.06 2.43 30936.31 -0.92

2005-2006 19270.66 8.92 11289.24 9.19 32924.35 6.43

2006-2007 21638.98 12.29 14927.19 32.22 46285.60 40.58

2007-2008 26366.01 21.84 16265.56 8.97 47329.18 2.25

2008-2009 32126.00 21.85 20787.52 27.80 44917.94 -5.09

Average 19416.25 8.79 12245.68 8.99 35448.94 5.86

SD 5790.41 9.35 3829.16 12.87 7502.65 13.81

Table shows the growth rate of establishment expenditure for




respectively.



2007 respectively.




Chart 1.10: Growth Rate of Establishment

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Administrative expense is one of the major expenses of total

expenditure.

Table 1.11: Growth Rate of Administrative Expenses (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 4722.18 256.08 899.04

2000-2001 6352.90 34.53 322.03 25.76 1029.63 14.53

2001-2002 6622.05 4.24 274.80 -14.67 917.14 -10.93

2002-2003 6616.59 -0.08 175.80 -36.03 1535.37 67.41

2003-2004 7558.60 14.24 184.66 5.04 1109.68 -27.73

2004-2005 8176.12 8.17 132.42 -28.29 1046.49 -5.69

2005-2006 9010.93 10.21 171.74 29.70 1315.89 25.74

2006-2007 10482.07 16.33 668.03 288.97 1843.22 40.07

2007-2008 10992.21 4.87 998.08 49.41 2144.85 16.36

2008-2009 13800.00 25.54 1275.56 27.80 2378.69 10.90

Average 8433.37 13.12 445.92 38.63 1422.00 14.52

SD 2695.54 11.06 399.70 98.21 533.35 28.36

Table shows the growth rate of Administrative expense for




respectively.



2007 respectively.




Chart 1.11: Growth Rate of Administrative Expenses

-100.00

-50.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.12: Growth Rate of Repair & Maintenance Expense (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 3652.15 3800.46 1905.96

2000-2001 4249.63 16.36 4405.69 15.92 1604.40 -15.82

2001-2002 3427.02 -19.36 4218.59 -4.25 2070.77 29.07

2002-2003 3075.35 -10.26 4763.58 12.92 2331.26 12.58

2003-2004 3353.20 9.03 5208.53 9.34 1888.42 -19.00

2004-2005 4017.97 19.82 5796.71 11.29 3308.16 75.18

2005-2006 4540.00 12.99 5725.93 -1.22 3149.98 -4.78

2006-2007 7006.57 54.33 8668.78 51.40 3875.61 23.04

2007-2008 7570.52 8.05 8715.69 0.54 3548.26 -8.45

2008-2009 8604.00 13.65 11138.72 27.80 4958.78 39.75

Average 4949.64 11.62 6244.27 13.75 2864.16 14.62

SD 2001.21 20.55 2429.72 17.20 1081.56 30.72

Table shows the growth rate of Repair & Maintenance

Expense for the period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2007 respectively.

Chart 1.12: Growth Rate of Repair & Maintenance Expense

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate







respectively.

Table 1.13: Growth Rate of Services related direct expense (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 923.50 3080.76 1288.06

2000-2001 1328.08 43.81 3046.13 -1.12 1381.42 7.25

2001-2002 1438.40 8.31 3049.38 0.11 1504.47 8.91

2002-2003 1434.38 -0.28 3209.16 5.24 1717.94 14.19

2003-2004 1615.09 12.60 3188.66 -0.64 1429.23 -16.81

2004-2005 2218.13 37.34 3444.07 8.01 1984.05 38.82

2005-2006 2589.31 16.73 3597.90 4.47 3004.31 51.42

2006-2007 3531.72 36.40 4434.94 23.26 3564.92 18.66

2007-2008 3670.79 3.94 4827.01 8.84 4421.58 24.03

2008-2009 4284.59 16.72 6168.95 27.80 4841.94 9.51

Average 2303.40 19.51 3804.70 8.44 2513.79 17.33

SD 1165.49 15.88 1033.28 10.39 1345.74 19.62

Table shows the growth rate of Services related direct

expense for the period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2009 respectively.



2005-2006 respectively. Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad

Chart 1.13: Growth Rate of Services related direct expense

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

rate


municipal corporations having average growth rate 15.88, 10.39

and 19.62 percent respectively.

Table 1.14: Growth Rate of Financial Expense (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 1905.05 1289.06 11554.27

2000-2001 1833.60 -3.75 1449.71 12.46 13421.35 16.16

2001-2002 2145.90 17.03 1657.79 14.35 13243.50 -1.33

2002-2003 2051.00 -4.42 1401.42 -15.46 12672.10 -4.31

2003-2004 1734.00 -15.46 1044.96 -25.44 12431.97 -1.89

2004-2005 738.83 -57.39 615.52 -41.10 13565.63 9.12

2005-2006 465.32 -37.02 328.91 -46.56 14588.88 7.54

2006-2007 485.80 4.40 287.83 -12.49 14519.02 -0.48

2007-2008 494.00 1.69 74.70 -74.05 21284.39 46.60

2008-2009 424.00 -14.17 95.47 27.80 23931.91 12.44

Average 1227.75 -12.12 824.54 -17.83 15121.30 9.32

SD 757.05 22.71 610.42 32.89 4096.71 15.69

Table shows the growth rate of Financial Expense for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2009 respectively.




Chart 1.14: Growth Rate of Financial Expense

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.15: Growth Rate of Salary and Wages (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 9280.63 4458.94 9509.21

2000-2001 7500.65 -19.18 4513.89 1.23 10460.31 10.00

2001-2002 7571.36 0.94 4528.52 0.32 14273.74 36.46

2002-2003 7608.56 0.49 4210.21 -7.03 14471.23 1.38

2003-2004 7728.81 1.58 4147.39 -1.49 15603.71 7.83

2004-2005 8214.13 6.28 4089.41 -1.40 15757.43 0.99

2005-2006 11090.32 35.02 5517.63 34.92 17404.26 10.45

2006-2007 12685.48 14.38 8373.74 51.76 25559.02 46.85

2007-2008 13236.10 4.34 7162.45 -14.47 26246.02 2.69

2008-2009 16237.20 22.67 12811.31 78.87 26558.06 1.19

Average 10115.32 7.39 5981.35 15.86 17584.30 13.09

SD 3061.80 15.35 2801.66 31.86 6351.31 16.82

Table shows the growth rate of Salary and Wages for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2009 respectively.




Chart 1.15: Growth Rate of Salary and Wages

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.16: Growth Rate of Other than Salary and Wages (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 6227.01 5639.18 19031.31

2000-2001 6651.39 6.82 4878.80 -13.48 20934.78 10.00

2001-2002 7278.74 9.43 4941.61 1.29 16116.03 -23.02

2002-2003 8191.84 12.54 5583.35 12.99 16077.36 -0.24

2003-2004 9030.42 10.24 5946.31 6.50 15618.37 -2.85

2004-2005 9479.13 4.97 6249.65 5.10 15178.88 -2.81

2005-2006 8180.34 -13.70 5771.61 -7.65 15520.09 2.25

2006-2007 8953.50 9.45 6553.44 13.55 20726.58 33.55

2007-2008 12767.19 42.59 9103.11 38.91 21083.16 1.72

2008-2009 15888.80 24.45 7976.21 -12.38 18359.88 -12.92

Average 9264.84 11.87 6264.33 4.98 17864.64 0.63

SD 2956.57 15.18 1330.86 16.23 2440.17 15.58

Table shows the growth rate of Other than Salary and Wages

for the period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.


Vadodara municipal corporations in the year 2000-2001 and 2007-

2008 respectively.




Chart 1.16: Growth Rate of Other than Salary and Wages

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate


Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal co rporations


respectively.

Table 1.17: Growth Rate of Octroi and Toll (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 22259.85 9672.19 30918.72

2000-2001 23003.10 3.34 11321.95 17.06 32451.10 4.96

2001-2002 23495.29 2.14 10458.90 -7.62 30806.73 -5.07

2002-2003 28502.80 21.31 11991.35 14.65 36130.57 17.28

2003-2004 30135.03 5.73 13489.09 12.49 40093.84 10.97

2004-2005 35417.50 17.53 15994.42 18.57 46204.73 15.24

2005-2006 40520.73 14.41 18451.98 15.37 55150.39 19.36

2006-2007 48559.48 19.84 22489.07 21.88 70815.00 28.40

2007-2008 34734.55 -28.47 16157.67 -28.15 51200.93 -27.70

2008-2009 0.00 -100.00 26.43 -99.84 0.00 -100.00

Average 28662.83 -4.91 13005.30 -3.96 39377.20 -4.06

SD 13091.40 38.74 6042.64 39.37 18791.64 39.53

Table shows the growth rate of Octroi and Toll for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2007 respectively.




Chart 1.17: Growth Rate of Octroi and Toll

-120.00

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.18: Growth Rate of Property Tax (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 7503.06 5003.98 11665.32

2000-2001 8625.18 14.96 4987.93 -0.32 9783.91 -16.13

2001-2002 9821.29 13.87 5055.04 1.35 12158.23 24.27

2002-2003 10978.40 11.78 5350.72 5.85 11455.94 -5.78

2003-2004 11817.36 7.64 5141.38 -3.91 11992.73 4.69

2004-2005 13453.36 13.84 7307.88 42.14 15047.07 25.47

2005-2006 10973.57 -18.43 6030.00 -17.49 17535.79 16.54

2006-2007 12417.06 13.15 5862.54 -2.78 20434.94 16.53

2007-2008 34084.00 174.49 6497.04 10.82 21372.31 4.59

2008-2009 79742.40 133.96 24280.67 273.72 22610.86 5.80

Average 19941.57 40.58 7551.72 34.38 15405.71 8.44

SD 22327.92 66.04 5926.87 91.20 4724.22 13.75

Table shows the growth rate of Property Tax for the period

from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2009 respectively.




Chart 1.18: Growth Rate of Property Tax

-50.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.19: Growth Rate of Reserved & Surplus (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 18515.48 1092.18 14208.68

2000-2001 30311.19 63.71 2442.43 123.63 13551.75 -4.62

2001-2002 40911.29 34.97 1358.95 -44.36 2601.00 -80.81

2002-2003 46549.74 13.78 2661.12 95.82 2701.00 3.84

2003-2004 60821.21 30.66 2818.30 5.91 11301.00 318.40

2004-2005 80234.31 31.92 6726.69 138.68 11301.00 0.00

2005-2006 92896.50 15.78 7344.70 9.19 21101.00 86.72

2006-2007 237647.88 155.82 5160.34 -29.74 31201.00 47.87

2007-2008 254503.62 7.09 24561.28 375.96 42800.20 37.18

2008-2009 279953.98 10.00 25484.69 3.76 78901.00 84.35

Average 114234.52 40.41 7965.07 75.43 22966.77 54.77

SD 101650.99 46.65 9238.53 130.78 23229.00 111.39

Table shows the growth rate of Reserved & Surplace for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2008 respectively.




Chart 1.19: Growth Rate of Reserved & Surplus

-200.00

-100.00

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.20: Growth Rate of Municipal Funds (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 58858.01 5432.61 28969.81

2000-2001 65942.69 12.04 7315.74 34.66 30730.46 6.08

2001-2002 73038.35 10.76 12613.93 72.42 31950.69 3.97

2002-2003 89804.55 22.96 15298.79 21.28 29803.11 -6.72

2003-2004 102146.39 13.74 18685.24 22.14 31876.28 6.96

2004-2005 118369.73 15.88 23641.05 26.52 42478.08 33.26

2005-2006 140283.46 18.51 32828.97 38.86 65763.60 54.82

2006-2007 208912.39 48.92 69870.67 112.83 87591.96 33.19

2007-2008 204120.68 -2.29 741110.81 960.69 136270.47 55.57

2008-2009 224532.75 10.00 812308.54 9.61 184930.00 35.71

Average 128600.90 16.72 173910.64 144.34 67036.45 24.76

SD 62963.45 13.93 318675.24 307.79 54098.95 22.93

Table shows the growth rate of Municipal Funds for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.


Surat municipal corporations in the year 2007-2008 and 2006-2007

respectively.



2008 respectively.




Chart 1.20: Growth Rate of Municipal Funds

-200.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1200.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.21: Growth Rate of Secured Loa n (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 12963.52 5469.64 31252.13

2000-2001 15633.89 20.60 4857.31 -11.20 26447.42 -15.37

2001-2002 17616.77 12.68 3964.71 -18.38 51702.61 95.49

2002-2003 14670.05 -16.73 2655.95 -33.01 51698.25 -0.01

2003-2004 11987.21 -18.29 2655.95 0.00 64490.17 24.74

2004-2005 2565.40 -78.60 785.07 -70.44 74492.20 15.51

2005-2006 2458.90 -4.15 1137.65 44.91 74494.48 0.00

2006-2007 2352.40 -4.33 949.50 -16.54 74494.67 0.00

2007-2008 1875.90 -20.26 1137.65 19.82 74494.67 0.00

2008-2009 2063.49 10.00 1262.59 10.98 74494.67 0.00

Average 8418.75 -11.01 2487.60 -8.21 59806.13 13.37

SD 6657.58 29.23 1737.06 33.00 18738.45 32.78

Table shows the growth ra te of Secured Loan for the period

from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2006 respectively.




Chart 1.21: Growth Rate of Secured Loan

-100.00

-80.00

-60.00

-40.00

-20.00

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.22: Growth Rate of Liability (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 98331.90 16357.00 172571.99

2000-2001 119851.63 21.88 21588.79 31.99 101380.24 -41.25

2001-2002 140536.76 17.26 25797.09 19.49 204363.38 101.58

2002-2003 164491.71 17.05 26742.22 3.66 123669.03 -39.49

2003-2004 189120.96 14.97 29924.84 11.90 159561.78 29.02

2004-2005 216746.46 14.61 34827.17 16.38 184629.45 15.71

2005-2006 253047.10 16.75 41494.36 19.14 222871.27 20.71

2006-2007 470629.66 85.99 77960.19 87.88 261631.76 17.39

2007-2008 460500.20 -2.15 769115.66 886.55 347780.70 32.93

2008-2009 506550.22 10.00 841376.80 9.40 456639.78 31.30

Average 261980.66 21.82 188518.41 120.71 223509.94 18.66

SD 156853.60 25.00 325931.86 288.28 107854.13 42.33

Table shows the growth rate of l iability for the period from

1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2008 respectively.




Chart 1.22: Growth Rate of Liability

-200.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.23: Growth Rate of Capital work in progress (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%) Value

Growth

(%)

1999-2000 82749.97 8401.76 20324.28

2000-2001 103489.25 25.06 16047.02 91.00 15487.43 -23.80

2001-2002 119417.72 15.39 19513.54 21.60 40068.61 158.72

2002-2003 136058.21 13.93 22104.96 13.28 17308.66 -56.80

2003-2004 153328.27 12.69 23653.30 7.00 49009.57 183.15

2004-2005 170714.93 11.34 29592.13 25.11 55483.00 13.21

2005-2006 203277.73 19.07 36550.19 23.51 61295.38 10.48

2006-2007 94904.57 -53.31 3958.00 -89.17 73754.10 20.33

2007-2008 120643.96 27.12 13787.96 248.36 99736.66 35.23

2008-2009 132708.36 10.00 18453.21 33.84 115490.90 15.80

Average 131729.30 9.03 19206.21 41.61 54795.86 39.59

SD 36442.14 24.12 9580.67 90.38 34148.04 79.54

Table shows the growth rate of Capital work in progress for



Surat municipal corporations in the year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008

respectively.



2008 respectively.




Chart 1.23: Growth Rate of Capital work in progress

-150.00

-100.00

-50.00

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

Table 1.24: Growth Rate of Unsecured Loan (Rs. In Lakhs)

Years


Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

Value Growth

(%)

1999-2000 7984.93 4362.57 8492.32

2000-2001 7951.57 -0.42 6973.31 59.84 8904.92 4.86

2001-2002 8956.78 12.64 7859.50 12.71 88552.96 894.43

2002-2003 13466.44 50.35 6126.36 -22.05 9696.43 -89.05

2003-2004 14166.11 5.20 5765.35 -5.89 9892.09 2.02

2004-2005 15576.98 9.96 3674.37 -36.27 10804.63 9.22

2005-2006 17408.25 11.76 183.03 -95.02 11525.48 6.67

2006-2007 21716.98 24.75 591.12 222.96 12558.23 8.96

2007-2008 0.00 -100.00 183.03 -69.04 14430.83 14.91

2008-2009 0.00 - 186.87 2.10 17825.26 23.52

Average 10722.80 1.78 3590.55 7.71 19268.31 97.28

SD 7124.03 43.99 3077.41 92.57 24507.40 300.78

Table shows the growth rate of Unsecured Loan for the

period from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



respectively.



2007 respectively.




Chart 1.24: Growth Rate of Unsecured Loan

-200.00

0.00

200.00

400.00

600.00

800.00

1000.00

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009

Years

Gro

wth

Rate




respectively.

5.3 Ratio Analysis

With rapid urbanization and the pressure on urban areas for

service delivery, the role of urban local governments is

undoubtedly becoming important and, here, their financial

capacity can hold the key. At the same time, there are several

issues in urban governance that need to be addressed yet.

Delegation of decision making powers to urban local bodies

(ULBs), which are traditionally considered as a part of the system

of State government and acting on behalf of it, is one of them. The

constitutional mechanisms like inter -governmental fiscal transfers

were an attempt to reduce the ground. It has become imperative

now to understand the financial position of ULBs in order to move

forward with the new means of fund flow. Performing cross -

sectional analysis of the finances of Surat, Vadodara and

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations in terms of their financial

base and its adequacy vis-à-vis norms, and their revenue and

expenditure performance. Using certain ratios, the relative

performance of municipalities on decentralization and dependency

measures was also assessed. The implications to the finances of

ULBs, in terms of raising resources, improv ing inter-governmental

transfers and charting new mechanisms are also discussed.

Revenue performance depend upon the ability of

municipality to generate revenue depends upon an array of factors:

(i) the level of economic activity in the region; (ii) fisc al powers

delegated to local government; (iii) tax efforts of municipal

government itself; and (iv) transfers out of sharable pool of

revenue by the state government to local government. The revenue

performance of the municipality/ Municipal Corporation ca n be

gauged by computing following two groups of indicators:

An Expenditure performance depend upon the level of

expenditure is, to some extent, reflective of the level of services

rendered by an urban local body. While the trend in per capita

expenditure would provide first approximation of the level of

services rendered by a municipal government, a further

segregation into discretionary and non-discretionary components,

relative share of revenue and capital expenditure, share of

establishment/ administra tive/ wages salaries as a proportion of

total/ revenue expenditure would reveal the quality of expenditure

and ability of the local bodies to meet is stated objectives.

Achieving a good proportion of own revenue to total revenue

receipts is one way of establishing creditworthiness, and a greater

share of tax revenue in it is desirable as it is a reliable revenue

source.

Apart from the measures of revenue growth and composition,

the revenue performance of Municipal Corporations can be gauged

through decentralization and dependency. Decentralization

measure is defined as the proportion of shared tax in the tax

revenue, which underscores the importance of share revenue as

opposed to own revenue. The dependency measure is the

proportion of total grants in a id in total expenditure.

The level and structure of expenditure has some major

implications to the finances of the Municipal Corporations. The

revenue expenditure, comprising expenditures on establishment

(staff salaries and administration) and maintenance, assumes

importance, as it relates to the provision of civic services and their

maintenance.

The expenditure structure of municipal corporations also

throws some lights on the relative importance assigned to each

component in the total expenditure and it has bearing on the

financial position and service delivery.

Various ratios has been calculated on the basis of various

financial terms using the data for the duration of ten years i.e.

from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Following are the ratios for three Municipals Corporations

i.e. Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad, listed below:

1. Year wise Per Capita Income, Expenditure Ratio

2. Ratio Percentage of Financial Expense by Loan

(Secured+Unsecured)

3. Ratio Percentage of Expenditure by Income

4. Ratio Percentage of Establishment Expenditure by total

Revenue Income

5. Ratio Percentage of Administrative Expense by total

Revenue Income

6. Ratio Percentage of Repair & Maintains Expense by Total

Revenue Income

7. Ratio Percentage of Direct Expense by Total Revenue

Income

8. Ratio Percentage of Financial Expense by Total Revenue

Income

9. Ratio Percentage of Other Expense by Total Revenue

Income

10. Ratio Percentage of Income over Expenditure by Total

Revenue Income

11. Ratio Percentage of Income over Expenditure by

Municipal Fund & Reserve & Surplus

12. Ratio Percentage of Salary, Wages & allowances by Total

Income

13. Ratio Percentage of Salary, Wages & allowances by

Establishment Expenditure

14. Ratio Percentage of Direct Expenditure for Service &

Programs by Total Income

15. Ratio Percentage of Terminal Benefits by Establishment

Expenditure

16. Ratio Percentage of Octrio & Toll by Income from Tax

17. Ratio Percentage of Property Tax & Toll by Income from

Tax

18. Ratio Percentage of Other direct Tax & Toll by Income

from Tax

Table 2.0: Year wise Per Capita Income, Expenditur e Ratio for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad

Year

Per Capita Income (in Rs.) Per Capita Expenditure (in Rs.) Ratio (Income over Expenditure)

Surat Vadodara Ahmedabad Surat Vadodara Ahmedabad Surat Vadodara Ahmedabad

2000 1659.53 1542.34 1644.62 1035.21 1436.34 1257.88 1.60 1.07 1.31

2001 1644.98 1609.91 1598.21 944.84 1400.54 1360.72 1.74 1.15 1.17

2002 1592.88 1493.07 1563.55 895.51 1371.28 1312.94 1.78 1.09 1.19

2003 1767.67 1587.47 1654.35 855.30 1391.24 1287.83 2.07 1.14 1.28

2004 1768.88 1592.90 1789.15 839.40 1380.67 1253.03 2.11 1.15 1.43

2005 1933.16 1861.75 2036.08 822.36 1389.74 1295.65 2.35 1.34 1.57

2006 1958.28 1908.20 2227.78 837.89 1404.56 1365.09 2.34 1.36 1.63

2007 2177.40 2219.42 2752.07 947.28 1858.36 1699.63 2.30 1.19 1.62

2008 2270.29 2843.74 3318.78 1033.41 1900.68 1862.57 2.20 1.50 1.78

2009 2454.86 3547.57 3398.72 1156.35 2365.20 1868.82 2.12 1.50 1.82

Average 1922.79 2020.64 2198.33 936.76 1589.86 1456.42 2.06 1.25 1.48

SD 293.09 677.64 712.05 109.60 339.06 251.07 0.27 0.16 0.24

Table(2.0) indicate the percentage ratio of Per Capita Income

over Expenditure. To calculate the per capita income and

expenditure projected population has been calculated using the

exponential growth rate and census population data for 1991 and

2001 for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad.

Looking to the ratio percentage, for Surat Municipal

Corporations percentage varies from 1.60 percent in the year 2000

to 2.35 percent in the year 2005. Average percentage of this ratio

is 2.06 for define period. Also per capita income and expenditure

is Rs. 1922.79 and Rs. 936.76 respectively.

Looking to the ratio percentage, for Vadodara Municipal

Corporations percentage varies from 1.07 percent in the year 2000

to 1.50 percent in the year 2008 and 2009. Av erage percentage of

this ratio is 1.25 for define period. Also per capita income and

expenditure is Rs. 2020.64 and Rs. 1589.86 respectively.

Looking to the ratio percentage, for Ahmedabad Municipal

Corporations percent varies from 1.17 percent in the yea r 2001 to

1.82 percentage in the year 2009. Average percentage of this ratio

is 1.48 for define period. Also per capita income and expenditure

is Rs. 2198.33 and Rs. 1456.42 respectively.

Table 2.1: Ratio Percentage of Financial Expense by Loan (Secured+ Unsecured) for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Financial

Expense

Secured

loan &

Unsecured

loan

Ratio

%

Financial

Expense

Secured

loan &

Unsecured

loan

Ratio

%

Financial

Expense

Secured

loan &

Unsecured

loan

Ratio

%

1999-2000 1905.05 20948.44 9.09 1289.06 9832.21 13.11 11554.27 111744.45 10.34

2000-2001 1833.60 23585.47 7.77 1449.71 11830.62 12.25 13421.35 35352.34 37.96

2001-2002 2145.90 26573.55 8.08 1657.79 11824.21 14.02 13243.50 140255.58 9.44

2002-2003 2051.00 28136.49 7.29 1401.42 8782.31 15.96 12672.10 61394.68 20.64

2003-2004 1734.00 26153.32 6.63 1044.96 8421.30 12.41 12431.97 74382.26 16.71

2004-2005 738.83 18142.38 4.07 615.52 4459.44 13.80 13565.63 85296.83 15.90

2005-2006 465.32 19867.15 2.34 328.91 1320.69 24.90 14588.88 86019.96 16.96

2006-2007 485.80 24069.38 2.02 287.83 1540.62 18.68 14519.02 87052.90 16.68

2007-2008 494.00 1875.90 26.33 74.70 1320.69 5.66 21284.39 88925.50 23.94

2008-2009 424.00 2063.49 20.55 95.47 1449.46 6.59 23931.91 92319.93 25.92

Average 1227.75 19141.56 9.42 824.54 6078.15 13.74 15121.30 86274.44 19.45

SD 757.05 9567.85 7.89 610.42 4508.08 5.53 4096.71 27811.62 8.32

Table(2.1) indicate the percentage ratio of financial charges to

Loan including secured and unsecured loan both. To under stand

the variation of this percentage ratio ten years value of financial

expense and loan amount has been taken for the periods 1999 -2000

to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 2.02 percentage (2006-2007)

to 26.33 percentage (2007-2008) on loan amount. The ratio pattern

indicates that on an average Surat Municipal Corporation paid

9.42 percentages as financial charges.

Chart 2.1: Ratio Percentage of Financial Expense by Loan (Secured+Unsecured)

for all three cities

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)


For Vadodara Municipal Corporations the above percentage

ratio is varies from 5.66 percentage (2007-2008) to 24.90

percentages (2005-2006). Vadodara Municipal Corporations paid

on an average 13.74 percentage financial charges on loan

amount.For Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations the above

percentages ratio is varies from 9.44 percentage (2001 -2002) to

37.96 percentages (2000-2001). Ahmedabad Municipal

Corporations paid on an average 19.45 percentage financial

charges on loan amount.

Table 2.2: Ratio Percentage of Expenditure by Income for all t hree cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Expenditure Income Ratio

% Expenditure Income

Ratio


Ratio

%

1999-2000 28234.20 36287.92 77.81 18268.41 16176.26 112.93 44198.29 46711.45 94.62

2000-2001 29348.74 38715.02 75.81 18294.21 17970.21 101.80 48928.17 46054.70 106.24

2001-2002 29977.71 40168.91 74.63 18395.89 17196.69 106.97 48179.07 47346.56 101.76

2002-2003 30520.69 47593.32 64.13 19167.73 18659.87 102.72 48941.80 51980.45 94.15

2003-2004 32697.98 51242.63 63.81 19535.85 19969.28 97.83 48278.18 59116.07 81.67

2004-2005 34568.56 60352.46 57.28 20195.36 24705.54 81.74 50922.46 69255.75 73.53

2005-2006 37827.00 65496.03 57.75 20962.12 25940.38 80.81 55053.59 79360.17 69.37

2006-2007 45392.68 78746.90 57.64 28483.90 30518.33 93.33 70263.58 101317.54 69.35

2007-2008 51803.74 87984.51 58.88 29919.44 31175.19 95.97 78820.19 124855.62 63.13

2008-2009 62736.00 101948.90 61.54 38237.29 39941.57 95.73 81051.60 128687.25 62.98

Average 38310.73 60853.66 64.93 23146.02 24225.33 96.99 57463.69 75468.56 81.68

SD 11482.00 22500.70 8.11 6785.19 7749.40 10.12 13812.03 32137.40 16.31

Table(2.2) indicate the percentage ratio of Expenditure by

income. To under stand the variation of this percentage ratio ten

years value of expenditure and income amount has been taken for

the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 57.28 percentage (2004 -2005)

to 77.81 percentage (1999-2000) on income amount. The average

of the ratio is found to be 64.93 percent during the ten years of

period.

Chart 2.2: Ratio Percentage of Expenditure by Income for all three cities

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)


For Vadodara Municipal Corporations percentage varies from

80.81 percentage (2005-2006) to 112.93 percentage (1999-2000)

on income amount. The average of the ratio is found to be 96.99

percent during the ten years of period.

For Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations percentage varies

from 62.98 percentage (2008-2009) to 106.24 percentage (2000-

2001) on income amount. The average of the ratio is found to be

81.68 percent during the ten years of period.

Table 2.3: Ratio Percentage of Establishment Expenditure by total Revenue Income for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Expenditure Income Ratio


Ratio


Ratio

%

1999-2000 15507.64 37691.59 41.14 10098.12 19616.66 51.48 28540.52 56611.80 50.41

2000-2001 14150.24 40036.14 35.34 9392.68 21029.12 44.67 31395.10 56258.44 55.81

2001-2002 14850.10 41543.76 35.75 9470.13 20029.64 47.28 30389.77 56283.24 53.99

2002-2003 15800.40 49403.01 31.98 9793.56 21871.34 44.78 30548.59 60898.52 50.16

2003-2004 16759.23 52976.51 31.64 10093.70 22538.82 44.78 31222.08 67350.15 46.36

2004-2005 17693.26 62041.62 28.52 10339.06 27054.54 38.22 30936.31 78379.07 39.47

2005-2006 19270.66 67347.26 28.61 11289.24 28478.57 39.64 32924.35 87698.00 37.54

2006-2007 21638.98 80244.69 26.97 14927.19 34018.04 43.88 46285.60 110787.53 41.78

2007-2008 26366.01 89658.00 29.41 16265.56 44764.54 36.34 47329.18 136622.66 34.64

2008-2009 32126.00 103888.00 30.92 20787.52 57352.20 36.25 44917.94 143077.71 31.39

Average 19416.25 62483.06 32.03 12245.68 29675.35 42.73 35448.94 85396.71 44.16

SD 5790.41 22633.74 4.29 3829.16 12479.58 4.98 7502.65 33502.03 8.42

Table(2.3) indicate the percentage ratio of Establishment

Expenditure by Total Revenue Income. To under stand the

variation of this percentage ratio ten years value of establishment

expenditure and total revenue income amount has been taken for

the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 28.52 percentage (2004 -2005)

to 41.14 percentage (1999-2000) on total revenue income amount.

The average of the ratio is found to be 32.03 percent d uring the

ten years of period.

Chart 2.3: Ratio Percentage of Establishment Expenditure by total Revenue

Income for all three cities

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)



36.25 percentage (2008-2009) to 51.48 percentage (1999-2000) on

total revenue income amount. The average of the ratio is found to

be 42.73 percent during the ten yea rs of period.



2001) on total revenue income amount. The average of the ratio is

found to be 44.16 percent during the ten years of period.

Table 2.4: Ratio Percentage of Administrative Expense by total Revenue Income for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Ad.

Expense Income

Ratio

%

Ad.

Expense Income

Ratio

%

Ad.

Expense Income

Ratio

%

1999-2000 4722.18 37691.59 12.53 256.08 19616.66 1.31 899.04 56611.80 1.59

2000-2001 6352.90 40036.14 15.87 322.03 21029.12 1.53 1029.63 56258.44 1.83

2001-2002 6622.05 41543.76 15.94 274.80 20029.64 1.37 917.14 56283.24 1.63

2002-2003 6616.59 49403.01 13.39 175.80 21871.34 0.80 1535.37 60898.52 2.52

2003-2004 7558.60 52976.51 14.27 184.66 22538.82 0.82 1109.68 67350.15 1.65

2004-2005 8176.12 62041.62 13.18 132.42 27054.54 0.49 1046.49 78379.07 1.34

2005-2006 9010.93 67347.26 13.38 171.74 28478.57 0.60 1315.89 87698.00 1.50

2006-2007 10482.07 80244.69 13.06 668.03 34018.04 1.96 1843.22 110787.53 1.66

2007-2008 10992.21 89658.00 12.26 998.08 44764.54 2.23 2144.85 136622.66 1.57

2008-2009 13800.00 103888.00 13.28 1275.56 57352.20 2.22 2378.69 143077.71 1.66

Average 8433.37 62483.06 13.72 445.92 29675.35 1.33 1422.00 85396.71 1.69

SD 2695.54 22633.74 1.27 399.70 12479.58 0.65 533.35 33502.03 0.32

Table(2.4) indicate the percentage ratio of Administrative

Expenditure by Total Revenue Income. To under stand the

variation of this percentage ratio ten years value of administrative

expenditure and total revenue income amount has been taken for

the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 12.53 percentage (1999-2000]


The average of the ratio is found to be 13.72 percent during the


Chart 2.4: Ratio Percentage of Administrative Expense by total Revenue Income


0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Rati

o (

%)





be 1.33 percent during the ten years of period.


from 1.34 percentage (2004-2005) to 2.52 percentage (2002-2003)

on total revenue income amount. The average of the ratio is found

to be 1.69 percent during the ten years of period.

Table 2.5: Ratio Percentage of Repair & Maintenance Expense by Total Revenue Income for all three cities (In Rs.

Lakhs)

Years


Repair &

Maintenance Income

Ratio

%

Repair &

Maintenance Income

Ratio

%

Repair &

Maintenance Income

Ratio

%

1999-2000 3652.15 37691.59 9.69 3800.46 19616.66 19.37 1905.96 56611.80 3.37

2000-2001 4249.63 40036.14 10.61 4405.69 21029.12 20.95 1604.40 56258.44 2.85

2001-2002 3427.02 41543.76 8.25 4218.59 20029.64 21.06 2070.77 56283.24 3.68

2002-2003 3075.35 49403.01 6.23 4763.58 21871.34 21.78 2331.26 60898.52 3.83

2003-2004 3353.20 52976.51 6.33 5208.53 22538.82 23.11 1888.42 67350.15 2.80

2004-2005 4017.97 62041.62 6.48 5796.71 27054.54 21.43 3308.16 78379.07 4.22

2005-2006 4540.00 67347.26 6.74 5725.93 28478.57 20.11 3149.98 87698.00 3.59

2006-2007 7006.57 80244.69 8.73 8668.78 34018.04 25.48 3875.61 110787.53 3.50

2007-2008 7570.52 89658.00 8.44 8715.69 44764.54 19.47 3548.26 136622.66 2.60

2008-2009 8604.00 103888.00 8.28 11138.72 57352.20 19.42 4958.78 143077.71 3.47

Average 4949.64 62483.06 7.98 6244.27 29675.35 21.22 2864.16 85396.71 3.39

SD 2001.21 22633.74 1.51 2429.72 12479.58 1.92 1081.56 33502.03 0.50

Table(2.5) indicate the percentage ratio of Repair &

Maintenance Expense by Total Revenue Income. To under stand

the variation of this percentage ratio ten years value o f Repair &

Maintenance Expense and total revenue income amount has been

taken for the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 6.23 percentage (2002 -2003]


The average of the ratio is found to be 7.98 percent during the ten

years of period.

Chart 2.5: Ratio Percentage of Repair & Maintenance Expense by Total Revenue


0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)










Table 2.6: Ratio Percentage of Direct Expense by Total Revenue Income for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Direct

Expenditure Income

Ratio

%

Direct

Expenditure Income

Ratio

%

Direct

Expenditure Income

Ratio

%

1999-2000 958.56 37691.59 2.54 3080.76 19616.66 15.70 1288.06 56611.80 2.28

2000-2001 1366.45 40036.14 3.41 3046.13 21029.12 14.49 1381.42 56258.44 2.46

2001-2002 1463.24 41543.76 3.52 3049.38 20029.64 15.22 1504.47 56283.24 2.67

2002-2003 1476.00 49403.01 2.99 3209.16 21871.34 14.67 1717.94 60898.52 2.82

2003-2004 1661.93 52976.51 3.14 3188.66 22538.82 14.15 1429.23 67350.15 2.12

2004-2005 2269.30 62041.62 3.66 3444.07 27054.54 12.73 1984.05 78379.07 2.53

2005-2006 2674.72 67347.26 3.97 3597.90 28478.57 12.63 3004.31 87698.00 3.43

2006-2007 3604.26 80244.69 4.49 4434.94 34018.04 13.04 3559.76 110787.53 3.21

2007-2008 3823.00 89658.00 4.26 4827.01 44764.54 10.78 4421.58 136622.66 3.24

2008-2009 4462.00 103888.00 4.30 6168.95 57352.20 10.76 4841.94 143077.71 3.38

Average 2375.94 62483.06 3.63 3804.70 29675.35 13.42 2513.28 85396.71 2.81

SD 1212.70 22633.74 0.63 1033.28 12479.58 1.73 1345.29 33502.03 0.48

Table(2.6) indicate the percentage ratio of Direct Expense by

Total Revenue Income. To under stand the variation of this

percentage ratio ten years value of Direct Expense and total

revenue income amount has been taken for the periods 1999 -2000

to 2008-2009.





years of period.

Chart 2.6: Ratio Percentage of Direct Expense by Total Revenue Income for all

three cities

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)










Table 2.7: Ratio Percentage of Financial Expense by Total Revenue Income for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Financial

Expense Income

Ratio

%

Financial

Expense Income

Ratio

%

Financial

Expense Income

Ratio

%

1999-2000 1905.05 37691.59 5.05 1289.06 19616.66 6.57 11554.27 56611.80 20.41

2000-2001 1833.60 40036.14 4.58 1449.71 21029.12 6.89 13421.35 56258.44 23.86

2001-2002 2145.90 41543.76 5.17 1657.79 20029.64 8.28 13243.50 56283.24 23.53

2002-2003 2051.00 49403.01 4.15 1401.42 21871.34 6.41 12672.10 60898.52 20.81

2003-2004 1734.00 52976.51 3.27 1044.96 22538.82 4.64 12431.97 67350.15 18.46

2004-2005 738.83 62041.62 1.19 615.52 27054.54 2.28 13565.63 78379.07 17.31

2005-2006 465.32 67347.26 0.69 328.91 28478.57 1.15 14588.88 87698.00 16.64

2006-2007 485.80 80244.69 0.61 287.83 34018.04 0.85 14519.02 110787.53 13.11

2007-2008 494.00 89658.00 0.55 74.70 44764.54 0.17 21284.39 136622.66 15.58

2008-2009 424.00 103888.00 0.41 95.47 57352.20 0.17 23931.91 143077.71 16.73

Average 1227.75 62483.06 2.57 824.54 29675.35 3.74 15121.30 85396.71 18.64

SD 757.05 22633.74 2.05 610.42 12479.58 3.15 4096.71 33502.03 3.47

Table(2.7) indicate the percentage ratio of Financial Expense

by Total Revenue Income. To under stand the variat ion of this

percentage ratio ten years value of Financial Expense and total


to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 0.41 percent age (2008-2009]



years of period.

Chart 2.7: Ratio Percentage of Financial Expense by Total Revenue Income for

all three cities

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)



0.17 percentage (2007-2008,2008-2009) to 8.28 percentage (2001-







Table 2.8: Ratio Percentage of Other Expense by Total Revenue Income for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Other

Expense Income

Ratio

%

Other

Expense Income

Ratio

%

Other

Expense Income

Ratio

%

1999-2000 1488.63 37691.59 3.95 0.00 19616.66 0.00 10.44 56611.80 0.02

2000-2001 1395.92 40036.14 3.49 0.00 21029.12 0.00 96.28 56258.44 0.17

2001-2002 1469.40 41543.76 3.54 0.00 20029.64 0.00 53.42 56283.24 0.09

2002-2003 1501.36 49403.01 3.04 0.00 21871.34 0.00 136.54 60898.52 0.22

2003-2004 1631.02 52976.51 3.08 0.00 22538.82 0.00 196.80 67350.15 0.29

2004-2005 1673.08 62041.62 2.70 0.00 27054.54 0.00 81.82 78379.07 0.10

2005-2006 1865.37 67347.26 2.77 20.14 28478.57 0.07 70.18 87698.00 0.08

2006-2007 2175.00 80244.69 2.71 165.16 34018.04 0.49 180.37 110787.53 0.16

2007-2008 2558.00 89658.00 2.85 36.49 44764.54 0.08 91.93 136622.66 0.07

2008-2009 3320.00 103888.00 3.20 46.63 57352.20 0.08 22.34 143077.71 0.02

Average 1907.78 62483.06 3.13 26.84 29675.35 0.07 94.01 85396.71 0.12

SD 616.18 22633.74 0.41 51.62 12479.58 0.15 61.76 33502.03 0.09

Table(2.8) indicate the percentage ratio of Other Expense by

Total Revenue Income. To under stand the variation of this

percentage ratio ten years value of Other Expense and total


to 2008-2009.





years of period.


0.0 percentage (1999-2000 to 2004-2005) to 0.49 percentage

Chart 2.8: Ratio Percentage of Other Expense by Total Revenue Income for all

three cities

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

YEars

Ra

tio

(%

)


(2001-2002) on total revenue income amount. The average of the

ratio is found to be 0.07 percent during the ten years of period.





Table 2.9: Ratio Percentage of Income over E xpenditure by Total Revenue Income for all three cities

(In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Surplace Income Ratio

% Surplace Income

Ratio

% Surplace Income

Ratio

%

1999-2000 14179.56 37691.59 37.62 1348.25 19616.66 6.87 13312.55 56611.80 23.52

2000-2001 17040.31 40036.14 42.56 2734.91 21029.12 13.01 8359.89 56258.44 14.86

2001-2002 18188.10 41543.76 43.78 1633.74 20029.64 8.16 9021.31 56283.24 16.03

2002-2003 25498.90 49403.01 51.61 2703.61 21871.34 12.36 13492.09 60898.52 22.16

2003-2004 27837.13 52976.51 52.55 3002.97 22538.82 13.32 20181.65 67350.15 29.97

2004-2005 35649.18 62041.62 57.46 6859.17 27054.54 25.35 28503.10 78379.07 36.37

2005-2006 38531.19 67347.26 57.21 7516.45 28478.57 26.39 33960.30 87698.00 38.72

2006-2007 45334.08 80244.69 56.49 5534.14 34018.04 16.27 42367.17 110787.53 38.24

2007-2008 48846.47 89658.00 54.48 14845.10 44764.54 33.16 59947.32 136622.66 43.88

2008-2009 54952.00 103888.00 52.90 19114.92 57352.20 33.33 64404.80 143077.71 45.01

Average 32605.69 62483.06 50.67 6529.33 29675.35 18.82 29355.02 85396.71 30.87

SD 14268.94 22633.74 6.91 5980.54 12479.58 9.92 20556.23 33502.03 11.17

Table(2.9) indicate the percentage ratio of Income over

Expenditure Expense by Total Revenue Income. To under s tand the

variation of this percentage ratio ten years value of Income over

Expenditure Expense and total revenue income amount has been







Chart 2.9: Ratio Percentage of Income over Expenditure by Total Revenue


0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Rati

o (

%)










Table 2.10: Ratio Percentage of Income over Expenditure by Municipal Fund & Reserve & Surplus for all three cities (In

Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Surplace

Municipal

Fund-

Reserve &

Surplace

Ratio

% Surplace

Municipal

Fund-

Reserve &

Surplace

Ratio

% Surplace

Municipal

Fund-

Reserve &

Surplace

Ratio

%

1999-2000 14179.56 77373.50 18.33 1348.25 6524.79 20.66 13312.55 43178.49 30.83

2000-2001 17040.31 96253.88 17.70 2734.91 9758.17 28.03 8359.89 44282.21 18.88

2001-2002 18188.10 113949.64 15.96 1633.74 13972.88 11.69 9021.31 34551.70 26.11

2002-2003 25498.90 136354.29 18.70 2703.61 17959.91 15.05 13492.09 32504.12 41.51

2003-2004 27837.13 162967.60 17.08 3002.97 21503.54 13.96 20181.65 43177.28 46.74

2004-2005 35649.18 198604.04 17.95 6859.17 30367.74 22.59 28503.10 53779.08 53.00

2005-2006 38531.19 233179.95 16.52 7516.45 40173.67 18.71 33960.30 86864.61 39.10

2006-2007 45334.08 446560.28 10.15 5534.14 75031.01 7.38 42367.17 118792.97 35.66

2007-2008 48846.47 458624.30 10.65 14845.10 765672.09 1.94 59947.32 179070.68 33.48

2008-2009 54952.00 504486.73 10.89 19114.92 837793.24 2.28 64404.80 263831.01 24.41

Average 32605.69 242835.42 15.39 6529.33 181875.70 14.23 29355.02 90003.21 34.97

SD 14268.94 163901.11 3.43 5980.54 327727.41 8.63 20556.23 76852.42 10.50

Table(2.10) indicate the percentage ratio of Income over

Expenditure by Municipal Fund & Reserve & Surplus . To under

stand the variation of this percentage ratio ten years value of

Income over Expenditure and Municipal Fund & Reserve &

Surplus amount has been taken for the periods 1999 -2000 to 2008-

2009.



to 18.70 percentage (2002-2003) on Municipal Fund & Reserve &

Surplus. The average of the ratio is found to be 15.39 percent

during the ten years of period.

Chart 2.10: Ratio Percentage of Income over Expenditure by Municipal Fund &

Reserve & Surplus for all three cities

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)




Municipal Fund & Reserve & Surplus . The average of the ratio is

found to be 14.23 percent during the ten years of peri od.



2005) on Municipal Fund & Reserve & Surplus amount. The

average of the ratio is found to be 34.97 percent during the ten

years of period.

Table 2.11: Ratio Percentage of Salary, Wages & allowances by Total Income for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Salary &

Allowance Total Income

Ratio

%

Salary &


Ratio

%

Salary &


Ratio

%

1999-2000 13389.04 37691.59 35.52 6943.13 19616.66 35.39 18484.39 56611.80 32.65

2000-2001 11722.37 40036.14 29.28 7173.65 21029.12 34.11 20333.17 56258.44 36.14

2001-2002 12179.79 41543.76 29.32 7401.54 20029.64 36.95 18002.11 56283.24 31.98

2002-2003 12552.68 49403.01 25.41 7239.95 21871.34 33.10 17988.65 60898.52 29.54

2003-2004 13590.36 52976.51 25.65 7619.15 22538.82 33.80 16411.51 67350.15 24.37

2004-2005 14443.06 62041.62 23.28 7637.90 27054.54 28.23 16939.40 78379.07 21.61

2005-2006 15892.40 67347.26 23.60 8239.88 28478.57 28.93 17888.30 87698.00 20.40

2006-2007 18111.15 80244.69 22.57 11201.76 34018.04 32.93 32469.18 110787.53 29.31

2007-2008 21548.64 89658.00 24.03 10924.83 44764.54 24.41 29062.29 136622.66 21.27

2008-2009 26663.30 103888.00 25.67 16578.47 57352.20 28.91 27779.30 143077.71 19.42

Average 16009.28 62483.06 26.43 9096.03 29675.35 31.68 21535.83 85396.71 26.67

SD 4816.46 22633.74 3.94 3045.08 12479.58 3.88 5884.86 33502.03 5.97

Table(2.11) indicate the percentage ratio of Salary, Wages &

allowances by Total Income. To understand the variation of this

percentage ratio ten years value of Salary, Wages & allowances

and Total Income amount has been taken for the periods 1999-

2000 to 2008-2009.



to 35.52 percentage (1999-2000) on Total Income. The average of

the ratio is found to be 26.43 percent during the ten years of

period.

Chart 2.11: Ratio Percentage of Salary, Wages & allowances by Total Income for

all three cities

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Rati

o (

%)




Total Income. The average of the ratio is found to be 31.68


For Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations pe rcentage varies


2001) on Total Income. The average of the ratio is found to be


Table 2.12: Ratio Percentage of Salary, Wages & allowances by Establis hment Expenditure for all three cities (In Rs.

Lakhs)

Years


Salary &

Allowance

Establishment

Expenditure

Ratio

%

Salary &

Allowance

Establishment

Expenditure

Ratio

%

Salary &

Allowance

Establishment

Expenditure

Ratio

%

1999-2000 13389.04 15507.64 86.34 6943.13 10098.12 68.76 18484.39 28540.52 64.77

2000-2001 11722.37 14150.24 82.84 7173.65 9392.68 76.37 20333.17 31395.10 64.77

2001-2002 12179.79 14850.10 82.02 7401.54 9470.13 78.16 18002.11 30389.77 59.24

2002-2003 12552.68 15800.40 79.45 7239.95 9793.56 73.93 17988.65 30548.59 58.89

2003-2004 13590.36 16759.23 81.09 7619.15 10093.70 75.48 16411.51 31222.08 52.56

2004-2005 14443.06 17693.26 81.63 7637.90 10339.06 73.87 16939.40 30936.31 54.76

2005-2006 15892.40 19270.66 82.47 8239.88 11289.24 72.99 17888.30 32924.35 54.33

2006-2007 18111.15 21638.98 83.70 11201.76 14927.19 75.04 32469.18 46285.60 70.15

2007-2008 21548.64 26366.01 81.73 10924.83 16265.56 67.17 29062.29 47329.18 61.40

2008-2009 26663.30 32126.00 83.00 16578.47 20787.52 79.75 27779.30 44917.94 61.84

Average 16009.28 19416.25 82.43 9096.03 12245.68 74.15 21535.83 35448.94 60.27

SD 4816.46 5790.41 1.81 3045.08 3829.16 3.86 5884.86 7502.65 5.48

Table(2.12) indicate the percentage ratio of Salary, Wages &

allowances by Establishment Expenditure . To understand the

variation of this percentage ratio ten years value of Salary, Wages

& allowances and Establishment Expenditure amount has been




to 86.34 percentage (1999-2000) on Establishment Expenditure .





Chart 2.12: Ratio Percentage of Salary, Wages & allowances by Establishment

Expenditure for all three cities

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)


Establishment Expenditure . The average of the ratio is found to be




2007) on Establishment Expenditure . The average of the ratio is


Table 2.13: Ratio Percentage of Direct Expenditure for Service & Programs by Total Income for all three cities (In Rs.

Lakhs)

Years


Direct

Expenditure Total Income

Ratio

%

Direct


Ratio

%

Direct


Ratio

%

1999-2000 958.56 37691.59 2.54 3080.76 19616.66 15.70 6959.47 56611.80 12.29

2000-2001 1366.45 40036.14 3.41 3046.13 21029.12 14.49 7243.35 56258.44 12.88

2001-2002 1463.24 41543.76 3.52 3049.38 20029.64 15.22 14747.97 56283.24 26.20

2002-2003 1470.33 49403.01 2.98 3209.16 21871.34 14.67 14390.03 60898.52 23.63

2003-2004 1661.93 52976.51 3.14 3188.66 22538.82 14.15 14969.86 67350.15 22.23

2004-2005 2269.30 62041.62 3.66 3444.07 27054.54 12.73 15549.68 78379.07 19.84

2005-2006 2674.72 67347.26 3.97 3597.90 28478.57 12.63 17593.19 87698.00 20.06

2006-2007 3604.26 80244.69 4.49 4434.94 34018.04 13.04 22324.00 110787.53 20.15

2007-2008 3822.61 89658.00 4.26 4827.01 44764.54 10.78 25705.97 136622.66 18.82

2008-2009 4462.00 103888.00 4.30 6168.95 57352.20 10.76 28773.85 143077.71 20.11

Average 2375.34 62483.06 3.63 3804.70 29675.35 13.42 16825.74 85396.71 19.62

SD 1213.12 22633.74 0.63 1033.28 12479.58 1.73 7125.26 33502.03 4.30

Table(2.13) indicate the percentage ratio of Direct

Expenditure for Service & Programs by Total Income . To

understand the variation of this percentage ratio ten years value of

Direct Expenditure for Service & Programs and Total Income

amount has been taken for the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



to 4.49 percentage (2006-2007) on Total Income. The average of

the ratio is found to be 3.63 percent during the ten years of period.

Chart 2.13: Ratio Percentage of Direct Expenditure for Service & Programs by

Total Income for all three cities

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Rati

o (

%)




Total Income. The average of the ratio is found to be 13.42


For Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations percentage va ries


2002) on Total Income. The average of the ratio is found to be


Table 2.14: Ratio Percentage of Terminal Benefits by Establishment Expenditure fo r all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Terminal

Benefits

Establishment

Expenditure

Ratio

%

Terminal

Benefits

Establishment

Expenditure

Ratio

%

Terminal

Benefits

Establishment

Expenditure

Ratio

%

1999-2000 1458.65 15507.64 9.41 1354.90 10098.12 13.42 121.69 28540.52 0.43

2000-2001 1666.47 14150.24 11.78 1426.41 9392.68 15.19 133.86 31395.10 0.43

2001-2002 2100.76 14850.10 14.15 1454.13 9470.13 15.35 143.43 30389.77 0.47

2002-2003 2438.02 15800.40 15.43 1863.30 9793.56 19.03 196.26 30548.59 0.64

2003-2004 2618.13 16759.23 15.62 1952.58 10093.70 19.34 249.15 31222.08 0.80

2004-2005 2640.00 17693.26 14.92 2137.49 10339.06 20.67 255.34 30936.31 0.83

2005-2006 2740.00 19270.66 14.22 2511.42 11289.24 22.25 255.63 32924.35 0.78

2006-2007 2733.18 21638.98 12.63 2938.79 14927.19 19.69 155.63 46285.60 0.34

2007-2008 3446.29 26366.01 13.07 3302.21 16265.56 20.30 136.41 47329.18 0.29

2008-2009 4227.36 32126.00 13.16 3159.32 20787.52 15.20 149.27 44917.94 0.33

Average 2606.89 19416.25 13.44 2210.05 12245.68 18.04 179.67 35448.94 0.53

SD 806.43 5790.41 1.88 732.15 3829.16 2.98 54.51 7502.65 0.21

Table(2.14) indicate the percentage ratio of Terminal Benefits

by Establishment Expenditure . To understand the variation of this

percentage ratio ten years value of Terminal Benefits and

Establishment Expenditure amount has been taken for the periods

1999-2000 to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 9.41 percentag e (1999-2000]

to 15.62 percentage (2003-2004) on Establishment Expenditure .



Chart 2.14: Ratio Percentage of Terminal Benefits by Establishment Expenditure


0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Rati

o (

%)




Establishment Expenditure . The average of the ratio is found to be




on Establishment Expenditure . The average of the ratio is found to


Table 2.15: Ratio Percentage of Octrio & Toll by Income from Tax for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Octrio Income from

Tax

Ratio

% Octrio

Income from

Tax

Ratio

% Octrio

Income from

Tax

Ratio

%

1999-2000 22259.85 29770.78 74.77 9672.19 14817.88 65.27 30918.72 42584.04 72.61

2000-2001 23003.10 31638.85 72.71 11321.95 16349.95 69.25 32451.10 42235.01 76.83

2001-2002 23495.29 33324.30 70.50 10458.90 15551.19 67.25 30806.73 42964.96 71.70

2002-2003 28502.80 39488.40 72.18 11991.35 17878.11 67.07 36130.57 47586.51 75.93

2003-2004 30135.03 42066.87 71.64 13489.09 19158.41 70.41 40093.84 52086.57 76.98

2004-2005 35417.50 49423.06 71.66 15994.42 23899.66 66.92 46204.73 61251.80 75.43

2005-2006 40520.73 52179.01 77.66 18451.98 25029.28 73.72 55150.39 72686.18 75.87

2006-2007 48559.48 62127.32 78.16 22489.07 29045.94 77.43 70815.00 91249.94 77.61

2007-2008 34734.55 69414.60 50.04 16157.67 24575.74 65.75 51200.93 103427.26 49.50

2008-2009 0.00 80433.00 0.00 26.43 31486.37 0.08 0.00 105282.30 0.00

Average 28662.83 48986.62 63.93 13005.30 21779.25 62.32 39377.20 66135.46 65.25

SD 13091.40 17136.18 23.80 6042.64 5856.87 22.19 18791.64 25440.26 24.40

Table(2.15) indicate the percentage ratio of Octrio & Toll by

Income from Tax. To understand the variation of this percentage

ratio ten years value of Octrio & Toll and Income from Tax

amount has been taken for the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



to 78.16 percentage (2006-2007) on Income from Tax. The average


period.



Chart 2.15: : Ratio Percentage of Octrio & Toll by Income from Tax for all three

cities

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Ra

tio

(%

)


Income from Tax. The average of the ratio is found to be 62.32




2007) on Income from Tax. The average of the ratio is found to be


Table 2.16: Ratio Percentage of Property Tax by Income from Tax for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Property

Tax

Income from

Tax

Ratio

%

Property

Tax

Income from

Tax

Ratio

%

Property

Tax

Income from

Tax

Ratio

%

1999-2000 7503.06 29770.78 25.20 5003.98 14817.88 33.77 9604.93 42584.04 22.56

2000-2001 8625.18 31638.85 27.26 4987.93 16349.95 30.51 8431.99 42235.01 19.96

2001-2002 9821.29 33324.30 29.47 5055.04 15551.19 32.51 10923.71 42964.96 25.42

2002-2003 10978.40 39488.40 27.80 5350.72 17878.11 29.93 10031.71 47586.51 21.08

2003-2004 11817.36 42066.87 28.09 5141.38 19158.41 26.84 10029.81 52086.57 19.26

2004-2005 13453.36 49423.06 27.22 7307.88 23899.66 30.58 12504.05 61251.80 20.41

2005-2006 10973.57 52179.01 21.03 6030.00 25029.28 24.09 15243.81 72686.18 20.97

2006-2007 12417.06 62127.32 19.99 5862.54 29045.94 20.18 15842.15 91249.94 17.36

2007-2008 34084.00 69414.60 49.10 6497.04 24575.74 26.44 24839.65 103427.26 24.02

2008-2009 79742.40 80433.00 99.14 24280.67 31486.37 77.11 35451.10 105282.30 33.67

Average 19941.57 48986.62 35.43 7551.72 21779.25 33.20 15290.29 66135.46 22.47

SD 22327.92 17136.18 23.75 5926.87 5856.87 15.96 8560.05 25440.26 4.57

Table(2.16) indicate the percentage ratio of Property Tax by


ratio ten years value of Property Tax and Income from Tax amount

has been taken for the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.



to 99.14 percentage (2008-2009) on Income from Tax. The average


period.



Chart 2.16: : Ratio Percentage of Property Tax by Income from Tax for all three cities

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Rati

o (

%)






2009) on Income from Tax. The average of the ratio is found to be


Table 2.17: Ratio Percentage of Other direct Tax & Toll by Income from Tax for all three cities (In Rs. Lakhs)

Years


Other

Direct Tax

Income from

Tax

Ratio

%

Other

Direct Tax

Income from

Tax

Ratio

%

Other

Direct Tax

Income from

Tax

Ratio

%

1999-2000 7.87 29770.78 0.03 141.70 14817.88 0.96 2060.39 42584.04 4.84

2000-2001 10.58 31638.85 0.03 40.07 16349.95 0.25 1351.92 42235.01 3.20

2001-2002 7.72 33324.30 0.02 37.24 15551.19 0.24 1234.52 42964.96 2.87

2002-2003 7.20 39488.40 0.02 536.04 17878.11 3.00 1424.23 47586.51 2.99

2003-2004 114.48 42066.87 0.27 527.94 19158.41 2.76 1962.92 52086.57 3.77

2004-2005 552.19 49423.06 1.12 597.35 23899.66 2.50 2543.02 61251.80 4.15

2005-2006 684.71 52179.01 1.31 547.30 25029.28 2.19 2291.98 72686.18 3.15

2006-2007 1150.78 62127.32 1.85 694.34 29045.94 2.39 4592.79 91249.94 5.03

2007-2008 596.05 69414.60 0.86 1921.03 24575.74 7.82 27386.68 103427.26 26.48

2008-2009 690.60 80433.00 0.86 7179.27 31486.37 22.80 69831.20 105282.30 66.33

Average 382.22 48986.62 0.64 1222.23 21779.25 4.49 11467.97 66135.46 12.28

SD 405.89 17136.18 0.66 2160.80 5856.87 6.78 22003.98 25440.26 20.30

Table(2.17) indicate the percentage ratio of Other direct Tax by


ratio ten years value of other direct Tax and Income from Tax amount

has been taken for the periods 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.


Corporations percentage varies from 0.02 percentage (2001 -2002,

2002-2003] to 1.85 percentage (2006-2007) on Income from Tax. The

average of the ratio is found to be 0.64 percent during the ten years

of period.

Chart 2.17: Ratio Percentage of Other direct Tax & Toll by Income from Tax for

all three cities

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

1999-

2000

2000-

2001

2001-

2002

2002-

2003

2003-

2004

2004-

2005

2005-

2006

2006-

2007

2007-

2008

2008-

2009

Years

Gro

wth

Ra

te (

%)






For Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations percentage varies from




5.4 Analysis of Variance

In this section we have tries to analyse the variation between

different major financial components of Municipal Corporations. In

this way we have use the one way analysis of variance for the mean

comparison of major financial indicators of mun icipal corporations.

Table 3.1: Mean comparison of Per Capita Total Income across

all three Municipal Corporations using One Way

Analysis of Variance .

Municipal

Corporations Mean SD F-value P-value

Surat 1922.793 293.091

0.556 0.580 Vadodara 2020.637 677.644

Ahmedabad 2198.332 712.053

(p <= 0.05, Significant at 5% level of significance)

Above table shows the mean comparison regarding the per

capita total income across the three municipal corporations. To

derive the per capita total income, tota l income has been divided by

their projected population for the respected year. Above table also

indicate mean values along with SD value for per capita total income

parameter.

With the help of One Way Analysis of Variance statistics,

following null hypothesis has been tested.

Average per capita total income for Surat, Vadodara and

Ahmedabad municipal corporations are alike for the ten years of

periods from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Above result indicate F-value (0.556) is not found to be

significant, as p-value is 0.580. So by accepting the above

assumption, it can be conclude that there is no significant difference

between mean values of per capita income amongst Surat (Rs.

1922.793), Vadodara (2020.637) and Ahmedabad (2198.332)

municipal corporations.

Table 3.2: Mean comparison of Per Capita Expenditure across


Analysis of Variance.

Municipal


Surat 936.757 109.599

18.799 0.000* Vadodara 1589.861 339.057

Ahmedabad 1456.415 251.070

* Significant at the 0.05 level

Pair having significant difference (Surat, Vadodara) (Surat,

Ahmedabad)


Above table shows the mean comparison regarding the per capita

expenditure across the three municipal corporations. To derive the

per capita expenditure, expenditure has been divided by their

projected population for the respected year. Above table also indicate

mean values along with SD value for per capita total expenditure.



Average per capita expenditure for Surat, Vadodara and

Ahmedabad municipal corporations are alike for the ten years of

periods from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Above result indicate F-value (18.799) is found to be significant,

as p-value is 0.000. So by rejecting the above assumption, it can be

conclude that, there exist significant difference between mean values

of per capita expenditure amongst Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad

municipal corporations.

Also by performing post hoc statistics, it is to be found that

there exists significant difference in the mean values of Surat

(936.757) with Vadodara (1589.861) and Ahmedabad (1456.415).

Table 3.3: Mean comparison of Ratio Per Capita Income by

Per Capita Expenditure across all three Municipal

Corporations using One Way Analysis of Variance.

Municipal


Surat 2.060 0.265

34.267 0.000* Vadodara 1.249 0.163

Ahmedabad 1.481 0.237



Ahmedabad)


Above table shows the mean comparison regarding the per

capita income over per capita expenditure across the three municipal

corporations. To derive the per capita income expenditure ratio, per

capita income has been divided by per capita expenditure for the

respected year. Above table also indicate mean values along with SD

value for the above mentioned ratio.



Average per capita income over per capita expenditure for

Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corporations are

alike for the ten years of periods from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.

Above result indicate F-value (34.267) is found to be

significant, as p-value is 0.000. So by rejecting the above

assumption, it can be conclude that, there exist significant difference

between mean values of the define ratio amongst Surat, Vadodara and

Ahmedabad municipal corporations.


there exists significant difference in the mean values of Surat (2.060)

with Vadodara (1.249) and Ahmedabad (1.481).

Table 3.4: Mean comparison of Financial Expense by Loan

across all three Municipal Corporations using One

Way Analysis of Variance.

Municipal


Surat 9.418 7.890

4.688 0.018* Vadodara 13.738 5.525



Pair having significant difference (Surat, Ahmedabad)


Above table shows the mean comparison of ratio based on the

financial expense by loan across the three municipal corporations. To

derive the mentioned ratio, financial expense has been divided by

total loan amount for the respected year. Above table also indicate

mean values along with SD value for the above mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of financial charge by loan for Surat,

Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corporations are alike for

the ten years of periods from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference in the mean values of Surat (9.418)

with Ahmedabad (19.450).

Table 3.5: Mean comparison of Expenditure by Income across



Municipal


Surat 64.927 8.106

17.774 0.000* Vadodara 96.983 10.115

Ahmedabad 81.680 16.306


Pair having significant difference (Surat, Vadodara) (Vadodara,

Ahmedabad) (Surat, Ahmedabad)


Above table shows the mean comparison of ratio regarding

expenditure by total income across the three municipal corporations.

To derive the mentioned ratio, expenditure has been divided by total

income for the respected year. Above table also indicate mean values

along with SD value for the above mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of expenditure by total income for Surat,

Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corporations are alike for

the ten years of periods from 1999-2000 to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference in the mean values in all three

municipal corporations i.e. Surat (64.927), Vadodara (96.983) and

Ahmedabad (81.680).

Table 3.6: Mean comparison of Establishment Expenditure by

total Revenue Income across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 32.028 4.291

11.560 0.000* Vadodara 42.732 4.983




Ahmedabad)



establishment expenditure by total revenue income acro ss the three

municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, establishment

expenditure has been divided by total revenue income for the





Average of ratio of establishment expenditure by total

revenue income for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal

corporations are alike for the ten years of per iods from 1999-2000

to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between Surat (32.028) with

Vadodara (42.732) and Ahmedabad (44.156).

Table 3.7: Mean comparison of Administrative Expense by

total Revenue Income across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 13.716 1.271

696.400 0.000* Vadodara 1.333 0.652




Ahmedabad)



administrative expenditure by total revenue income across the three

municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, administrative

expenditure has been divided by total revenue income for the





Average of ratio of administrative expenditure by total


corporations are alike for the ten years of periods from 1999 -2000

to 2008-2009.









Table 3.8: Mean comparison of Repair & Maintains Expense by

Total Revenue Income across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 7.978 1.506

414.460 0.000* Vadodara 21.218 1.919







repair and maintains expense by total revenue income across the

three municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, repair

and maintains expense has been divided by total revenue income for

the respected year. Above table also indicate mean values along with

SD value for the above mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of repair and maintains expense by total



to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between all three municipal

corporations i.e. Surat (7.978) with Vadodara (21.218) and

Ahmedabad (3.390).

Table 3.9: Mean comparison of Direct Expense by Total

Revenue Income across all three Municipal

Corporations using One Way Analysis of Varianc e.

Municipal


Surat 3.628 0.632

288.356 0.000* Vadodara 13.417 1.731




Ahmedabad)



direct expense by total revenue income across the three municipal

corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, direct expense has been

divided by total revenue income for the respected year. Above table

also indicate mean values along with SD value for the above

mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of direct expense by total revenue income

for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corporations are



significant, as p-value is 0.000. So by reject ing the above





there exists significant difference Vadodara (13.417) with Surat

(3.628) and Ahmedabad (2.814).

Table 3.10: Mean comparison of Financial Expense

by Total Revenue Income across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 2.567 2.054

92.026 0.000* Vadodara 3.741 3.148



Pair having significant difference (Vadodara, Ahmedabad) (Surat,

Ahmedabad)



financial expense by total revenue income across the three municipal

corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, financial expense has

been divided by total revenue income for the respected year. Above

table also indicate mean values along with SD value for the above

mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of financial expense by total revenue

income for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal


to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between Ahmedabad (18.642) with

Surat (2.568) and Vadodara (3.741).

Table 3.11: Mean comparison of Other Expense by Total

Revenue Income across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 3.132 0.415

453.560 0.000* Vadodara 0.072 0.151




Ahmedabad)



other expense by total revenue income across the three municipal

corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, other expense has been

divided by total revenue income for the respecte d year. Above table

also indicate mean values along with SD value for the above

mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of other expense by total revenue income

for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corporations are










Table 3.12: Mean comparison of Income over Expenditure

by Total Revenue Income across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 50.667 6.914

28.630 0.000* Vadodara 18.822 9.915

Ahmedabad 30.875 11.170






income over expenditure by total revenue income across the three

municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, income over

expenditure has been divided by to tal revenue income for the





Average of ratio of income over expenditure by total



to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between Vadodara (18.822) with

Surat (50.667) and Ahmedabad (30.875).

Table 3.13: Mean comparison of Income over Expenditure

by Municipal Fund & Reserve & Surplus across all

three Municipal Corporations using One Way


Municipal


Surat 15.394 3.433

20.742 0.000* Vadodara 14.229 8.626

Ahmedabad 34.972 10.500



Ahmedabad)



income over expenditure by municipal funds across the three

municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, income ov er

expenditure has been divided by municipal funds for the respected

year. Above table also indicate mean values along with SD value for

the above mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of income over expenditure by municipal

funds for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal


to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between Ahmedabad (34.972) with

Surat (15.394) and Vadodara (14.229).

Table 3.14: Mean comparison of Salary, Wages &

allowances by Total Income across all three

Municipal Corporations using One Way Analysis of

Variance.

Municipal


Surat 26.433 3.943

3.971 0.031* Vadodara 31.676 3.880



Pair having significant difference (Vadodara, Ahm edabad)

(Vadodara, Surat)



salary, wages & allowances by total income across the three

municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, tota l of

salary, wages and allowance has been divided by total income for the



With the help of One Way Analysis of Variance statistics, following

null hypothesis has been tested.

Average of ratio of salary, wages and allowance by total

income for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal


to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between Vadodara (31.676) with

Ahmedabad (26.669) and Surat (26.433).

Table 3.15: Mean comparison of Salary, Wages & allowances

by Establishment Expenditure across all three


Variance.

Municipal


Surat 82.426 1.807

78.067 0.000* Vadodara 74.152 3.861



Pair having significant difference (Vadodara, Ahmedabad)

(Vadodara, Surat) (Surat, Ahmedabad)



salary, wages & allowances by establishment expenditure across the

three municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, total of

salary, wages and allowance has been divided by establishment

expenditure for the respected year. Above table also indicate mean

values along with SD value for the above mentioned ratio.



Average of ratio of salary, wages and allowance by

establishment expenditure for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad

municipal corporations are alike for the te n years of periods from

1999-2000 to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between all the municipal

corporations i.e. Surat (82.426), Vadodara (74.15 2) and Ahmedabad

(60.271).

Table 3.16: Mean comparison of Direct Expenditure for

Service & Programs by Total Income across all three


Variance.

Municipal


Surat 3.627 0.634

88.941 0.000* Vadodara 13.417 1.731





(p <= 0.05, Significant at 5% level of significan ce)


direct expenditure for service and programs by total income across

the three municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio,

regarding direct expenditure for service and programs has been

divided by total income for the respected year. Above table also

indicate mean values along with SD value for the above mentioned

ratio.



Average of ratio of direct expenditure for service and

programs by total income for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad

municipal corporations are alike for the ten years of periods from

1999-2000 to 2008-2009.






Also by performing post hoc stat istics, it is to be found that

there exists significant difference between all three i.e. Surat

(3.627), Vadodara (13.417) and Ahmedabad (19.620).

Table 3.17: Mean comparison of Terminal Benefits by

Establishment Expenditure across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 13.438 1.884

198.203 0.000* Vadodara 18.044 2.980




Ahmedabad)



terminal benefits by establishment expenditure across the three

municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, regarding

terminal benefits has been divided by establishment expenditure for

the respected year. Above table also indicate mean values along with

SD value for the above mentioned ratio.

With the help of One Way Analysis of Variance statist ics,


Average of ratio of terminal benefits by establishment

expenditure for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal


to 2008-2009.







there exists significant difference between all three municipal

corporations i.e. Surat (13.438), Vadodara (18.044) and Ahmedabad

(0.534).

Table 3.18: Mean comparison of Octrio & Toll by Income

from Tax across all three Municipal Corporations

using One Way Analysis of Variance.

Municipal


Surat 63.932 23.795

0.039 0.962 Vadodara 62.315 22.196

Ahmedabad 65.246 24.395



income from octrio & toll by income from tax across the three

municipal corporations. To derive the mentioned ratio, income from

octrio & toll has been divided by income from tax for the respected





Average of ratio of income from octrio & toll by income

from tax for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal


to 2008-2009.



assumption, it can be conclude that, there exist no significant

difference between mean values of the define ratio amongst Surat,

Vadodara and Ahmedabad municipal corporations.

Table 3.19: Mean comparison of Property Tax & Toll by

Income from Tax across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 35.431 23.754

1.714 0.199 Vadodara 33.196 15.959




income from property tax by income from tax across the three


property tax has been divided by income from tax for the respected





Average of ratio of income from property tax by income



to 2008-2009.






Table 3.20: Mean comparison of Other direct Tax & Toll

by Income from Tax across all three Municipal


Municipal


Surat 0.637 0.658

2.302 0.119 Vadodara 4.491 6.780

Ahmedabad 12.282 20.302

(p <= 0.05, Significant a t 5% level of significance)


income from other direct tax by income from tax across the three


other direct tax has been divided by income from tax for the





Average of ratio of income from other direct tax by income



to 2008-2009.






5.5 Regression Analysis

A time series is a set of ordered observations on a quantitative

characteristic of a phenomenon at equally spaced time points. One of

the main goals of time series analysis is to forecast future values of

the series.

A trend is a regular, slowly evolving change in the series l evel.

Changes that can be modeled by low-order polynomials

In making a forecast, it is also important to provide a measure

of how accurate one can expect the forecast to be. The use of

intuitive methods usually precludes any quantitative measure of

confidence in the resulting forecast. The statistical analysis of the

individual relationships that make up a model, and of the model as a

whole, makes it possible to attach a measure of confidence to the

model‘s forecasts.

In the Single-Equation Regression Models the variable under

study is explained by a single function (linear or nonlinear) of a

number of explanatory variables. The equation will often be time -

dependent (i.e., the time index will appear explicitly in the model),

so that one can predict the response over time of the variable under

study to changes in one or more of the explanatory variables. A

principal purpose for constructing single -equation regression models

is forecasting. A forecast is a quantitative estimate (or set of

estimates) about the likelihood of future events which is developed

on the basis of past and current information. This information is

embodied in the form of a model—a single-equation structural model

and a multi-equation model or a time-series model. By extrapolating

our models beyond the period over which they were estimated, we

can make forecasts about near future events. This section shows how

the single-equation regression model can be used as a forecasting

tool.

Table 4.1: Trend analysis for Income from Tax using

Regression Analysis across three Municipal

Corporations using the data for the year 1999 -2000 to

2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.974 0.944 0.951

R2 0.949 0.891 0.904

F-value 149.360 65.302 75.627

p-value 0.000* 0.000* 0.000*

Coefficient of

X (b) 5514.146 1825.851 7991.209

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000

Constant 18658.840 11737.071 22180.811

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.005

In the above table, the model summary table reports the

strength of the relationship between the years and Inco me fro tax for

Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations.

For Surat, R the multiple correlation coefficients indicates the

linear correlation between the observed and model predicated value

of Income from tax. Here it indicates high positive c orrelation

(0.974) between years and Income from tax. R2 the coefficient of

determinant is square value of the multiple correlation coefficient. It

shows that in Surat, 94.9 percent of Income from tax can be

explained by years. Moreover regression model as well as coefficient

of independent variable i.e. years is found to be significant.

Similarly to Vadodara multiple correlation coefficients R

indicate high positive correlation (0.944) between the year and

Income from tax. Value of determinant of coeffic ient R2 reflects 89.1

percent income from tax is explained by years. Model F -value is also

found to be significant with significant coefficient value of years.

For Ahmedabad high positive correlation found between year

and Income from tax, the value of R is 0.951. Value of determinant

of coefficient R2 reflects 90.4 percent income from tax is explained

by years. Model F-value and coefficient of years is found to be

significant.

Model for prediction for Income from tax with year for all

three municipal corporations are as follows.

Surat: y = 18658.840 + 5514.146 (x)

Vadodara: y = 11737.017 + 1825.851 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = 22180.811 + 7991.209 (x)

Where y is Income from tax & x is year

Table 4.2: Trend analysis for Other Revenue Income using


Corporations using the data for the year 1999-2000 to

2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.934 0.629 0.778

R2 0.871 0.396 0.606

F-value 54.245 5.235 12.289

p-value 0.000* 0.051 0.008

Coefficient of

X (b) 1355.271 539.840 1226.765

p-value 0.000 0.051 0.008

Constant 644.089 -1058.051 -2352.290

p-value 0.588 0.490 0.310


strength of the relationship between the years and revenue income for

Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations.



of revenue income. Here it indicates high positive correlation (0.93 4)

between years and revenue income. R2 the coefficient of determinant

is square value of the multiple correlation coefficient. It shows that

in Surat, 87.1 percent of revenue income can be explained by years.

Moreover regression model as well as coefficient of independent

variable i.e. years is found to be significant.

For Vadodara multiple correlation coefficients R indicate

positive correlation (0.629) between the year and Income from tax.

Value of determinant of coefficient R2 reflects 39.6 percent income

from tax is explained by years. Model F-value is not found to be

significant. with non-significant coefficient value of years.


and revenue income from tax, the value of R is 0.778. Value of

determinant of coefficient R2 reflects 60.6 percent revenue income is

explained by years. Model F-value and coefficient of years is found

to be significant.

Model for prediction for revenue income from tax with year for all


Surat: y = 644.089 + 1355.271 (x)

Vadodara: y = -1056.051 + 539.840 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = -2352.290 + 1226.765 (x)

Where y is revenue income from tax & x is year

Table 4.3: Trend analysis for Establishment Expenditure

using Regression Analysis across three Municipal


2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.888 0.845 0.844

R2 0.789 0.714 0.713

F-value 29.979 19.973 19.876

p-value 0.001* 0.002* 0.002

Coefficient of

X (b) 1699.181 1068.682 2092.461

p-value 0.001 0.002 0.002

Constant 10070.759 6367.927 23940.411

p-value 0.001 0.003 0.000


strength of the relationship between the years and establishment

expenditure for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad Municipal

Corporations.



of establishment expenditure. Here it indicates high posi tive

correlation (0.888) between years and establishment expenditure. R2

the coefficient of determinant is square value of the multiple

correlation coefficient. It shows that in Surat, 78.9 percent of

establishment expenditure can be explained by years. Mo reover

regression model as well as coefficient of independent variable i.e.

years are found to be significant.



establishment expendi ture. Value of determinant of coefficient R2

reflects 71.4 percent establishment expenditure is explained by years.

Model F-value is also found to be significant with significant

coefficient value of years.

For Ahmedabad high positive correlation found b etween year

and establishment expenditure, the value of R is 0.844. Value of

determinant of coefficient R2 reflects 71.3 percent establishment

expenditure is explained by years. Model F -value and coefficient of

years is found to be significant.

Model for prediction for establishment expenditure with year

for all three municipal corporations are as follows.

Surat: y = 10070.759 + 1699.181 (x)

Vadodara: y = 6367.927 + 1068.682 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = 23940.411 + 2092.461 (x)

Where y is establishment expenditure & x is year

Table 4.4: Trend analysis for Administrative Expense using



2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.962 0.726 0.861

R2 0.923 0.527 0.742

F-value 98.511 8.904 22.968

p-value 0.000* 0.017* 0.001*

Coefficient of

X (b) 856.220 95.815 151.710

p-value 0.000 0.017 0.001

Constant 3724.158 -81.060 587.595

p-value 0.000 0.695 0.017


strength of the relationship between the years and administrative

expense for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad Municipal

Corporations.



of administrative expense. Here it indicates high positive correlation

(0.962) between years and administrative expense. R2 the coefficient

of determinant is square value of the multiple correlation coefficient.

It shows that in Surat, 92.3 percent of administrative expense can be


of independent variable i.e. years are found to be significant.



administrative expense. Value of determinant of coefficient R2

reflects 52.7 percent administrative expense is explained by years.




and administrative expense, the value of R is 0.861. Value of

determinant of coefficient R2 reflects 74.2 percent administrative

expense is explained by years. Model F -value and coefficient of


Model for prediction for administrative expense with year for

all three municipal corporations are as follows.

Surat: y = 3724.158 + 856.220 (x)

Vadodara: y = -81.060 + 95.815 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = 587.595 + 151.710 (x)

Where y is administrative expense & x is year

Table 4.5: Trend analysis for Repair & Maintenance

Expenditure using Regression Analysis across three

Municipal Corporations using the data for the year

1999-2000 to 2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.832 0.921 0.916

R2 0.693 0.848 0.839

F-value 18.032 44.652 41.622

p-value 0.003* 0.000* 0.000*

Coefficient of

X (b) 550.118 739.033 327.167

p-value 0.003 0.000 0.000

Constant 1923.994 2179.584 1064.743

p-value 0.044 0.013 0.010


strength of the relationship between the years and maintenance


Corporations.



of maintenance expenditure. Here it indicates high positive

correlation (0.832) between years and maintenance expenditure. R2


correlation coefficient. It shows that in Surat, 69.3 percent of

maintenance expenditure can be explained by years. Moreover

regression model as well as coefficient of independent variable i.e.

years are found to be significant.



maintenance expenditure. Value of determinant of coefficient R2

reflects 84.8 percent maintenance expenditure is explained by years.




and maintenance expenditure, the value of R is 0.916. Value of

determinant of coefficient R2 reflects 83.9 percent maintenance



Model for prediction for maintenance expenditure with year for


Surat: y = 1923.994 + 550.118 (x)

Vadodara: y = 2179.584 + 739.033 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = 1064.743 + 327.167 (x)

Where y is maintenance expenditure & x is year

Table 4.6: Trend analysis for Direct Expenditure for Service

& Programs using Regression Analysis across three

Municipal Corporations using the data for the year

1999-2000 to 2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.963 0.863 0.927

R2 0.927 0.745 0.859

F-value 101.763 23.391 48.800

p-value 0.000* 0.001* 0.000*

Coefficient of

X (b) 385.670 294.602 411.857

p-value 0.000 0.001 0.000

Constant 254.761 2184.386 248.062

p-value 0.314 0.000 0.517


strength of the relationship between the years and direct expenditure

for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporations.



of direct expenditure. Here it indicates high positive correlation

(0.963) between years and direct expenditure. R2 the coefficient of

determinant is square value of the multiple correlation coefficient. It

shows that in Surat, 92.7 percent of direct expenditure can be


of independent variable i.e. years is found to be significant.


indicate high positive correlation (0.86.3) between the year and

direct expenditure. Value of determinant of coefficient R2 reflects

74.5 percent direct expenditure is explained by years. Model F -value

is also found to be significant with significant coefficient value of

years.


and direct expenditure, the value of R is 0.927. Value of dete rminant

of coefficient R2 reflects 85.9 percent direct expenditure is explained

by years. Model F-value and coefficient of years is found to be

significant.

Model for prediction for direct expenditure with year for all


Surat: y = 254.761 + 385.670 (x)

Vadodara: y = 2184.386 + 294.602 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = 248.062 + 411.857 (x)

Where y is direct expenditure & x is year

Table 4.7: Trend analysis for Other Expense using Regression

Analysis across three Municipal Corporations using

the data for the year 1999-2000 to 2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.872 0.555 0.118

R2 0.760 0.308 0.014

F-value 25.365 3.561 0.113

p-value 0.001* 0.096 0.745

Coefficient of

X (b) 177.449 9.463 2.408

p-value 0.001 0.096 0.745

Constant 931.810 -25.202 80.767

p-value 0.003 0.441 0.107


strength of the relationship between the years and direct expenditure

for Surat, Vadodara and Ahmedabad Municipa l Corporations.



of other expense. Here it indicates high positive correlation (0.872)

between years and other expense. R2 the coefficient of determinant is

square value of the multiple correlation coefficient. It shows that in

Surat, 76.0 percent of other expense can be explained by years.

Moreover regression model as well as coefficient of independent

variable i.e. years is found to be significant.


indicate positive correlation (0.555) between the year and other

expense. Value of determinant of coefficient R2 reflects 30.8 percent

direct expenditure is explained by years. Model F-value is not found

to be significant with non-significant coefficient value of years.

For Ahmedabad non-significant correlation found between year

and other expense, the value of R is 0.118 which is not significant.

Value of determinant of coefficient R2 reflects only 1.4 percent other

expense is explained by years. Model F -value and coefficient of

years is not found to be significant.

Model for prediction for other expense with year for all three

municipal corporations are as follows.

Surat: y = 931.810 + 177.449 (x)

Vadodara: y = -25.202 + 9.463 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = 80.767 + 2.408 (x)

Where y is other expense & x is year

Table 4.8: Trend analysis for Income over Expenditure using



2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.993 0.867 0.944

R2 0.986 0.751 0.891

F-value 571.055 24.142 65.333

p-value 0.000* 0.001* 0.000*

Coefficient of

X (b) 4680.206 1711.928 6408.471

p-value 0.000 0.001 0.000

Constant 6864.562 -2886.277 -5891.570

p-value 0.000 0.219 0.265


strength of the relationship between the years and income over


Corporations.



of income over expenditure. Here it indicates high positive

correlation (0.993) between years and income over expenditure. R2


correlation coefficient. It shows that in Surat, 98.6 percent of income

over expenditure can be explained by years. Moreover regression

model as well as coefficient of independent variable i.e. years is

found to be significant.



income over expenditure. Value of determinant of coefficient R2

reflects 75.1 percent income over expenditure is explained by years.




and income over expenditure, the value o f R is 0.944. Value of

determinant of coefficient R2 reflects 89.1 percent income over



Model for prediction for income over expenditure with year for


Surat: y = 6864.562 + 4680.206 (x)

Vadodara: y = -2886.277 + 1711.928 (x)

Ahmedabad: y = -5891.570 + 6408.471 (x)

Where y is income over expenditure & x is year

Table 4.9: Trend analysis for Financial Expense using



2008-2009

Regression

result


R 0.985 0.983 0.524

R2 0.970 0.965 0.275

F-value 114.803 97.797 1.326

p-value 0.000* 0.000* 0.325

Coefficient of

X (b1) 0.003 0.150 -0.005

p-value 0.652 0.000 0.921

Coefficient of

X (b2) 0.109 -0.051 0.116

p-value 0.000 0.372 0.149

Constant 249.159 38.711 8633.834

p-value 0.056 0.617 0.165

b1:Total Loan, b2: Secured Loan

The above regression indicates the prediction of financial

charges by taking the total loan and secured loan as a effective

variables during the ten years of period from 1999 -2000 to 2008-

2009 for all the municipal corporations.

For Surat multiple correlations (0.985) indicate high linearity

between the financial charges and total loan and secured loan. To

gather financial charges can be explained 97.0 percent for Surat.

With high positive correlation (0.983) in Vadodara there exists high

correlation between f inancial charges and total loan and secured loan

during the defined period. Using the result it can be seen that 96.5

percent financial charges has been explained due to loan and secured

loan.

Specifically for Ahmedabad correlation between financial

charges and loan and secured loan is found to be 0.524, which

indicates that there is no strong relationship between them. Even the

regression model is not found to be significant. Only 27.5 percent

financial charges is explained by total loan and secured loan .

Model for prediction for financial charges due to total loan

and secured loan for all three municipal corporations are as follows.

Surat: y = + (x)

Vadodara: y = + (x)

Ahmedabad: y = + (x)

Where y is financial expense, x1 is total loan & x2 is s ecured

loan

Documents

Chapter 5shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3517/15/15... · · 2015-12-04Chapter-5: Analysis and Interpretation 5.1 Introduction ... This vicious cycle leads to poor delivery