State Bonds Start Pricing Fiscal Discipline

Indian state bonds are beginning to carry a fiscal signal. In the June 9 auction of 2037-maturity state government securities, Kerala borrowed at 7.74%, while Gujarat borrowed at 7.62%. The 12-basis-point gap may look small, but it reflects a larger shift: investors are slowly distinguishing between states with stronger balance sheets and those with weaker fiscal metrics.

States are no longer peripheral borrowers, as their share in total government securities issued rose to 47% in 2025-26, from about one-third a decade ago. As states depend more heavily on market borrowing, fiscal discipline is becoming a determinant of borrowing cost, not merely a compliance metric.

The contrast between Gujarat and Kerala illustrates this shift. Budget estimates for 2026-27, including spending funded through loans under the Special Assistance Scheme for Capital Investment, put Gujarat’s fiscal deficit at 2.0% of its GDP and outstanding liabilities at 14.7%. Kerala’s corresponding numbers are 3.4% and 33.4%. The market has begun to price that difference, even within an asset class still viewed as safe.

This is a useful development, but not yet a strong one.

A 12-basis-point spread between two states with such divergent fiscal positions suggests that investors are differentiating, but only modestly. Unlike corporate borrowers, where weaker balance sheets often face sharper penalties, states continue to benefit from the perception that fiscal stress will ultimately invite support from the Centre.

The risk is that such confidence can create moral hazard.

Germany’s experience offers a cautionary parallel, even if its federal structure is not directly comparable with India’s. In 1992, Germany provided financial support to debt-ridden states. The assurance of federal support from the Bund weakened incentives for fiscal prudence. Over time, these stress payments were phased out. The lesson was clear: repeated protection from consequences can dilute discipline at the sub-sovereign level.

India has tried to guard against this through fiscal rules. The Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 requires states to keep fiscal deficits below 3% of GSDP. Under Article 293 of the Constitution, the Union government can restrict a state’s access to market borrowing. In practice, however, the framework has functioned more as a guiding principle than a hard constraint. The Centre has relied largely on incentives, persuasion and reform-linked support rather than strict enforcement.
But market borrowing has changed the stakes.

When states raised a smaller share of public debt, weak fiscal discipline could be treated mainly as a budget-management problem. With SGS now accounting for nearly half of total government securities issuance, it has become a market-pricing problem as well. Initiatives such as NITI Aayog’s Fiscal Health Index and reform-linked SASCI loans can help reduce information gaps and align incentives.

State budgets for 2026-27 show that nine states have above-average ratios of revenue expenditure to capital outlay, as well as interest payments to revenue receipts. Among them, Punjab, Kerala and Himachal Pradesh emerge as the weakest performers. These ratios show how much fiscal space is being absorbed by committed expenditure and debt servicing, leaving less room for productive investment.

The Reserve Bank of India has repeatedly flagged the rising burden of cash transfer schemes on state finances. Such programmes may serve important social objectives, but they can also crowd out spending on economic and social infrastructure. Once introduced, they are politically difficult to reverse, creating permanent fiscal commitments for state exchequers.

Capital expenditure offers the other side of the story, as states have often relied on the Centre for grants and assistance to support capex spending. State capex growth slowed in 2024-25 and 2025-26 relative to the surge seen in 2023-24, which was supported by 50-year interest-free SASCI loans. That nudge helped, but sustainable capital spending cannot depend indefinitely on central support. It must rest on states’ own fiscal capacity and policy choices. The disparities remain visible: in 2025-26, Uttar Pradesh led in capex, followed by Maharashtra and Gujarat, while Punjab and Himachal Pradesh were among the lowest spenders among major states.

The next phase of fiscal federalism should therefore reward discipline more explicitly.

The Centre’s incentives, market pricing and independent fiscal assessments must all point in the same direction. Stronger states should see a clearer borrowing advantage, while fiscal slippage should carry a more visible cost.

States will play a crucial role in India’s Viksit Bharat 2047 journey. Their capital expenditure can unlock large growth multipliers across the economy. But that ambition requires fiscal sustainability. If state borrowing is to keep expanding, markets must price risk better and policy must avoid subsidising persistent profligacy. Fiscal discipline should become a state’s cheapest source of capital.

* Views are personal.