Session 4B Case Studies in Welfarism PDF

Session 4 Financing Welfare B. Need for Convergence Case Studies Prof Govinda Bhattacharjee Beti Bachao Bati Padhao  Constitutional provisions regarding women and children Art 15: Right against discrimination (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grou...

Session 4 Financing Welfare B. Need for Convergence Case Studies Prof Govinda Bhattacharjee Beti Bachao Bati Padhao  Constitutional provisions regarding women and children Art 15: Right against discrimination (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. Art 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect or, any employment or office under the State. Art 39: Equal tight to adequate means of livelihood to men and women equally; equal pay for equal work; freedom and dignity; freedom from abuse of children; Art 42: provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. Article 51A (e) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.  Level of Influence Nudge uses the power of the “social norm” as most people want to behave or be seen to behave in congruity with these norms. Social norms can be created, just like social trust. Laissez faire Nudge Incentivize Mandate Aadhar Jan-Dhan Yojana Beti Bachao Beti Padao Swacchh Bharat Taxes on Tobacco Prohibition  Triggers for BBBP As per Census 2011, India’s child sex ratio consistently falling for decades => from 976 in 1961 to an all time low of 918 in 2011; Between the 2001 and 2011 censuses, 21 out of 28 states registered a decline in child sex ratio; India’s rank in World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report, 2021 - 140th - A slip from 120th rank in 2020 => 3rd Worst Performer in South Asia behind Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan; Despite improvement in educational outcomes, a decline female labour force participation ie from 34% in 2004-05 to 27% in 2011-12. BBBP launched on 22nd January, 2015 to address the issue of decline in CSR in 100 gender critical districts to ensure coordinated and convergent efforts for survival, protection and education of the girl child.  Objectives The overall goal of the scheme is to celebrate the girl child and enable her education. Objectives Prevent gender biased sex selective elimination Ensure survival & protection of the girl child and Ensure education of the girl child Major Targets Improve the SRB in selected gender critical districts by 2 points a year. Increase enrolment of girls in secondary education to 82% by 2018-19. Reduce Gender differentials in Under Five Child Mortality Rate from 7 points in 2014 (latest available SRS report) to 1.5 points per year At least 1.5% increase per year of Institutional Deliveries. Provide functional toilet for girls in every school in selected districts. Improve the Nutrition status of girls - by reducing number of underweight and anemic girls under 5 years of age.  Components Mass Communication (Advocacy and Media Campaign) on Beti Bachao Beti Padhao Under the Scheme, a Nation-wide campaign was launched for celebrating Girl Child and enabling her education. The campaign aims at ensuring that girls are born, nurtured and educated without discrimination to become empowered citizens of this country with equal rights. A 360° media approach was adopted to create awareness and disseminating information about the issue across the nation. The Campaign interlinks National, State and District level interventions with community level action in 100 districts, bringing together different stakeholders for accelerated impact. Multi-Sectoral interventions in 100 Gender Critical Districts covering all States/ UTs Coordinated & convergent efforts are undertaken in close coordination with MoHFW and MoHRD to ensure survival, protection and education of the girl child. The District Collectors/Deputy Commissioners (DCs) lead and coordinate actions of all departments for implementation of BBBP at the District level.  Multi-Sectoral Interventions Three Ministries Involved: Ministry of WCD Promote registration of pregnancies in first trimester in Anganwadi Centres (AWCs); Undertake training of stakeholders; Community mobilization & sensitization; Involvement of gender champions; Reward & recognition of institutions and frontline workers. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Monitor implementation of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCP&DT) Act, 1994; Increased institutional deliveries; Registration of births; Strengthening PNDT Cells; Setting up Monitoring Committees Ministry of Education Universal enrolment of girls; Decreased drop-out rate; Girl Child friendly standards in schools; Strict implementation of Right to Education (RTE); Construction of Functional Toilets for girls.  Implementation The Pan India Expansion of BBBP covering all 640 districts of the country was launched on 8th March 2018. Social Media channels/ YouTube were used extensively to spread the message of BBBP, along with a sustained social mobilization and communication campaign to create equal value for the girl child and to promote her education. Badlav campaign. Drawing on scriptures, cultures and norms of society यत्रनाययस्तु पूज्यन्तेरमन्तेतत्रदे वता:|| This campaign was labelled BADLAV (Beti Aapki Dhan Lakshmi Aur Vijay Lakshmi) to represent the 'change' towards gender equality. By drawing on the imagery of the forms of Goddess Lakshmi that symbolises wealth (Dhan Lakshmi) and victory (Vijay Lakshmi), the message of treating women as the forms of Lakshmi was emphasized by the campaign whose objective was a) to explicitly state the new norm of gender equality, b) to focus attention on all those who adopt the new norm, and c) to continuously reinforce the norm over time. #SELFIEwithDaughter Reinforce Repeatedly  SAMARTHYA and SAMBAL The BBBP scheme is implemented with 100% central assistance. Rupees 50 lakh per year is earmarked per districts for utilisation under six different components, viz. 16% for inter-sectoral consultation/ capacity building, 50% for innovation/ awareness generation activities, 6% for monitoring and evaluation, 10% for sectoral interventions in health, 10% for sectoral interventions in education and 8% as flexi funds. Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women through Education pointed to the excessive amount of funds for Beti Bachao Beti Padhao scheme spent on advertisement. “The Committee finds that out of a total of Rs. 446.72 crore released during the period 2016- 2019, a whopping 78.91% was spent only on media advocacy.” Till 2020-21 the outlay and expenditure of the scheme was appearing in the budget documents. From 2021-22 the outlay is merged under the umbrella SAMARTHYA scheme (Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Creche, Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana/ Gender Budgeting/Research/Skilling/ Training etc.) From 2022-23 the outlay is merged under the umbrella SAMBAL (Beti Bacaho Beti Padhao, One Stop Centre, Nari Adalat, Mahila Police Volunteer, Women's Helpline etc.) The separate allocation and expenditure figures are neither available in the budget nor in the Detailed Demands for Grants.  Financial Performance Financial BE RE Actual Funds used Funds % of advt. Year Expenditure for Media Utilised by funds to total Advocacy State/ UTs) Exp. 2014-15 90 50 34.84 NA 0.35 2015-16 97 75 59.37 NA 10.82 2016-17 100 43 32.70 29.79 8.87 88.94% 2017-18 200 200 169.10 135.70 21.38 80.25% 2018-19 280 280 244.92 160.13 41.05 65.38% 2019-20 280 200 85.78 23.67 73.99 27.48% 2020-21 220 100 60.57 NA NA  Outcome: GER and CSR 2015-16 2019-20 GER has in fact declined in 18 out of Gross Enrolment Ratio 80.10 77.83 36 states/ UTs in 2018-19. Since both GER and CSR are functions of many Drop Out Rate 16.9 15.1 variables, the fall in GER cannot really be attributed to the success or failure of BBBP scheme alone. 2015-16 2020-21 There were rural-urban divergence. CSR at Birth 919 929 It certainly indicates that the BBBP and its media awareness campaigns IMR 40.7 35.2 on which so much money was spent NNMR 29.5 24.9 did not produce optimum results. CSR in Tamil Nadu improved from 942 females in 2001 to 946 females in 2011. BBBP covered 11 districts showing the worst CSR, but CSR for Tamil Nadu as a whole has recorded a steep decline from 954 to 878 between 2015-16 and 2019-20. This indicates that some other effective intervention is needed. The Ministry of Education has identified the lack of infrastructure and toilet facilities, early marriage and low aspirations of girls as some of the causes for this decline.  CSR by States: 2015-16 and 2020-21 NHFS 4 NHFS 5 NHFS 4 NHFS 5 NHFS 4 NHFS 5 ( 2015- (2019- ( 2015- (2019- ( 2015- (2019- 16) 20) 16) 20) 16) 20) Andhra Pradesh 914 934 Karnataka 910 978 Rajasthan 887 891 Arunachal 926 979 Kerala 1047 951 Sikkim 809 969 Pradesh Assam 929 964 MP 927 956 Tamil Nadu 954 878 Bihar 934 908 Manipur 962 967 Telangana 872 894 Chattisgarh 977 960 Maharashtra 924 913 Tripura 969 1028 Goa 966 836 Meghalaya 1009 989 Uttarakhand 888 984 Gujrat 906 955 Mizoran 949 969 UP 903 941 Haryana 836 893 Nagaland 953 945 West Bengal 960 973 Himachal Pradesh 937 875 Odisha 932 894 India 919 929 J&K 923 976 Punjab 860 904 Jharkhand 919 899 Issue of Convergence  Efficiency of public expenditure The real issue at stake is the efficiency of public expenditure, which raises questions about the lack of synergy between the centre and the states and overlap of similar schemes with identical objectives. This leads to suboptimal use of public funds at both the central and state levels. Almost all states have similar schemes for the girl child and women with identical objectives as the BBBP, as can be seen from the sample below: To empower girl students; reduce gender gap in academic institutions and reduce dropouts: (Mukhyamantri Balika Cycle Yojana, Bihar, 2006; Saraswati Bicycle Yojana, Chattisgarh, 2004-05) To raise the status of girl child in family and society; change mindsets of people for proper rearing of girl children; improve the declining sex ratio of females and increase the number of girls in families, etc; (Aapki Beti Hamari Beti, 2015, Haryana; Bhagyalaxmi scheme, Karnataka, 2006-07) To improve health and educational status of girls; prevent female foeticides; change people’s attitude towards girl child; prevent child marriages; (Ladli Laxmi Yojana, MP; Sivagami Ammaiyar scheme, Tamil Nadu)  Lack of Synergy These common objectives between state schemes also overlap the objectives of many central schemes like the BBBP or SSA, etc. These schemes, most of which are meant primarily for the BPL or SC/ST families, broadly fall into three categories (with some overlaps between these): Since it is primarily due to the huge expenses associated with marrying a daughter that a family prefers a boy over a girl child, many of the schemes are designed to assist the family at the time of marriage by providing financial assistance when the girl attains marriageable age or are about to be married. Usual practice is to open a fixed deposit / LIC policy when the girl is born which will mature after 18 years, while some states also provide financial assistance which are often too meagre (say, Rs 5000 only) to be of any real help; Schemes like Mukhyamantri Kanya Bibaha Yojana, Bihar; Rupashree Prakalpa, West Bengal; Ladli Scheme, Delhi; Mazi Kanya Bhagyashree scheme, Maharashtra; Kanya Jagriti Jyoti Scheme, Punjab; Ladli Laxmi Yojana, MP; Mukhyamantri Laadli Yojana, Jharkhand; Girl Child Protection Scheme, Andhra Pradesh, etc., fall in this category.  Lack of Synergy Contd. Then there are schemes meant for empowerment of girls through education while remaining unmarried, either through scholarships from the secondary/ intermediate stage to the graduation level, with scholarships increasing progressively with higher levels of education. Schemes for providing bicycles also fall within this category which have been found highly successful in their impact, not only for preventing drop-out rates but also for helping change the societal attitude towards girls; Schemes like Mukhyamantri Balika Cycle Yojana, Bihar; Mukhyamantri Kanya Utthaan Yojana, Bihar; Saraswati Bicycle Scheme, Chattisgarh; Beti Hai Anmol, Himachal Pradesh; Ladli Beti Scheme, Jammu & Kashmir; Mukhyamantri Laadli Yojana, Jharkhand; Bhagyalaxmi scheme, Karnataka; Ladli Laxmi Yojana, MP; Kanya Jagriti Jyoti Scheme, Punjab; Mazi Kanya Bhagyashree scheme, Maharashtra; Mukhyamantri Rajshri Yojana, Rajasthan; Bangaru Thalli Scheme, Telangana; Bhagyalakshmi Yojana, UP; Mukhya Mantri Kanya Sumangala Scheme, UP; Nanda Gaura Devi Kanya Yojana, Uttarakhand; Kanyashree Prakalpa, West Bengal; Ladli Scheme, Delhi, etc., fall within this category.  Lack of Synergy Contd. There are also schemes designed to improve the sex ratio and to prevent female foeticide, which incentivise parents by providing health insurance cover for the girl child and encourage them to adopt family planning measures after the birth of two girl children. Some states simply provide a sum, nominal again, after the birth of the girl child. Schemes like Girl Child Protection Scheme, Andhra Pradesh; Indira Gandhi Balika Suraksha Yojana, Himachal Pradesh; MAMTA Scheme For Girl Child, Goa; Mukhyamantri Kanya Suraksha Yojana, Bihar; Kunwarbai Nu Mameru Scheme, Gujarat; Aapki Beti Hamari Beti, Haryana; Bhagyalaxmi scheme, Karnataka; Balri Rakshak Yojana, Punjab; Mukhyamantri Rajshri Yojana, Rajasthan; Sivagami Ammaiyar Scheme, Tamil Nadu, etc., fall within this category.  Sub-optimal utilisation of public funds Many states lack resources and the capacity to intervene meaningfully to make a difference to the girl child and produce perceptible impact. The capacity and resources also vary significantly from state to state. A typical budget for most of these schemes for a poor state would be well below Rs 100 crore – which may not be adequate for bringing about a permanent social change. They also lack visibility to attract potential beneficiaries who may be unaware of their existence. All these schemes need integration with similar Central schemes and much better synergy for optimal utilisation of public funds. While “Core of the Core” schemes remained the same in number, “Core” schemes have now proliferated with funds being allocated to as many as 41 such schemes; some of these are again a combination of several schemes, like Umbrella ICDS or Mission Shakti as discussed earlier, and this is not all. Statement number 48 of the expenditure budget shows as many as 740 central sector schemes, some of them without allocations, under demands for grants of different ministries. Here again there is an obvious lack of synergy. Only 130 have allocations above Rs 500 crore in 2022-23 budget.  Lack of systematic evaluation A scheme represent public policy and every government, state or central, has the necessary authority and mandate to design and implement any scheme. But the question is one of efficiency in public expenditure both in the centre and the states. The multiplicity of such schemes, their mindless proliferation and wastage of public funds due to suboptimal delivery or impact of these schemes are aberrations in our public financial system. Neither is there a regular institutional mechanism nor a defined procedure to evaluate their efficacy. Such evaluation is usually done in ad-hoc manner through engagement of third parties – either on nomination basis or by inviting tenders. The result of such evaluation is often suspect as the evaluating agencies remain vulnerable to pressures by an interested executive to show the schemes as effective and hide their deficiencies and the results are not put in the public domain. Ministries use these evaluations as justifications for continuing with the schemes and making expenditure which may serve the political purposes of incumbent governments.  Suggestions It is therefore suggested that where state schemes serve common objectives across the country, they should be implemented as CSS leaving the states free to focus on other important areas. That way scale and efficiency can be achieved while ensuring involvement and cooperation of the states. As regards the existing CSS and Central Sector Schemes, there is an urgent need to evaluate these in a transparent manner either through the Comptroller & Auditor General of India or an independent agency. There should also be a statutory independent council represented by both the centre and the states to review the schemes periodically. This will enhance both the allocative efficiency of public expenditure and the spirit of cooperative federalism while ensuring the optimal value for money of taxpayers’ funds. MNREGA  Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act MGNREGA Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), was passed in 23 August 2005 by the UPA government. It aims to enhance livelihood security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work. In the first phase MNREGA was launched in 200 districts in 2006, and based on their experience, NREGA was scoped up to cover all the districts of India from 1 April 2008. The scale of the programme is staggering, providing employment to a third of India’s rural population, at an annual cost of 0.3-0.4% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The MGNREGA was initiated with the objective of "enhancing livelihood security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year, to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work". Another aim of MGNREGA is to create durable assets (such as roads, canals, ponds and wells). Employment is to be provided within 5 km of an applicant's residence, and minimum wages are to be paid. If work is not provided within 15 days of applying, applicants are entitled to an unemployment allowance. That is, if the government fails to provide employment, it has to provide certain unemployment allowances to those people. Thus, employment under MGNREGA is a legal entitlement. Apart from providing economic security and creating rural assets, other things said to promote NREGA are that it can help in protecting the environment, empowering rural women, reducing rural-urban migration and fostering social equity, among others."  MNREGA - 2006 -2016 Though the Prime Minister had criticised MNREGA as “a living monument” of failure of the UPA Government because of which even “after 60 years of Independence, people had to dig pits”, considerations of realpolitik seems to have twisted the thinking among NDA since then. Its tenth anniversary was celebrated by the Government and the Congress alike with a great deal of fanfare - with both claiming credit for its successful implementation. The durable assets that were actually created were limited mostly to the building of mud roads and embankments or cutting the overgrowth on road margins or desilting of tanks or reclamation of fallow land and the like. They have very limited long-term effects and were labour intensive, but required no special skill. They can hardly be called rural investment in the sense that no income generating assets were created out of the funds. About Rs 7.69 crore have been fed into MNREGA during 2009-2024, but their effect in making any significant reduction of poverty for the country as a whole still remains to be seen, despite contrary claims by its hard core supporters. The issue has become so emotive that even a mild criticism of this programme evokes the strongest and loudest chorus of condemnation from its defenders, and the high pitch of emotions often silences the demands for a dispassionate and objective analysis of its benefits vis-à-vis the costs.  Positive Impact of MNREGA It is undeniable that MNREGA has helped alter the rural scenario in India. Studies noted a positive impact of MNREGA funds on household income and monthly per capita expenditure. Most significant has been the impact of MNREGA on rural demand and wages, especially in agriculture wage rates. The MGNREGA-notified wages have increased significantly across all States since 2006. Studies have also highlighted the benefits to women and adivasis in terms not only of income-consumption effects or enhancement of choice and capability, but also in correcting the gender-skewness. Socio-economic variables like annual per capita income, monthly per capita expenditure on food, annual per child expenditure on education, per capita savings, condition of the dwelling houses, access to healthcare facility etc. have improved as a result of this scheme. Seasonal migration of rural labour has come down significantly, while the benefits by way of additional incomes were used for food security, education etc.  The Other Side But it is also equally true that many studies conducted over the years pointed to the sub- optimal performance of the scheme due to a number of factors. These studies indicated that the scheme was becoming supply-driven and top-down in nature, instead of remaining demand-driven and bottoms-up as envisaged and that the average number of days of employment per household was declining over time. Its impact on rural poverty has at best only been modest. The moot question is whether any such right and entitlement based programme can really address or reduce poverty, without integrating capacity development as an essential element of strategy. While such programmes may reduce the intensity of poverty in the beneficiary households in a limited scale, the impact of such a scheme on poverty alleviation will always remain sub-optimal as it does not address the essential question of development of skill-based capacity which alone can ensure gainful employment along with economic growth.  What the CAG Reports Say An earlier CAG Report on the Performance Audit of MNREGA in 2008 had pointed out some serious deficiencies like non-transparent recording of employment demand, deficiencies in the planning and implementation process, poor record maintenance demonstrating the lack reliability and authenticity of the reported figures etc. The last CAG’s report on MNREGA – Report no. 6 of 2013 - observed that even though the average wage cost or wages paid was rising, the benefits to a rural household was negated by the decline in employment provided per household. The CAG report has observed that while the number of works taken up increased steadily from about 20 lakh in 2007-08 to more than 80 lakh in 2011-12, the number of works actually completed increased from about 1 million in 2007-08 to only about 2.5 million in 2010-11 and then declined to 2 million in 2011-12; most of the funds were still locked up in works-in progress. An asset is created only after the corresponding works are completed, and 80 percent of the works taken up under MNREGA remained incomplete. Poverty Levels and Average Annual Number of Households Provided Employment in States  No Relations with Poverty The report also noted that Bihar, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh accounted for 46 per cent of the rural poor but could utilize only 20 per cent of the MNREGA funds; consequently only 20 per cent of total households were provided employment under the Scheme. In fact, only four states (Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) accounted for 50 per cent of the total expenditure made under the Scheme. There was thus little correlation between poverty level in a state and the implementation of MNREGA. As the CAG report states categorically, “the poorest of poor were not fully able to exercise their rights under MNREGA”. This directly contradicts what the advocates of the scheme have always been claiming to justify its continuance in the same form.  MNREGA: Actually a Dole Distribution System CAG Report is silent on the reasons for the observed lack of correlation between MNREGA and poverty levels, but they are not difficult to divine. Poor do not get to overcome their poverty until they are empowered to do so, and empowerment comes only through education, health and acquisition of an employable skill-set. Programmes like MNREGA do not facilitate any of these and merely provide subsistence- level aid, which may alleviate their poverty only temporarily. In fact, instead of addressing the roots of poverty, they only perpetuate it by denying the poor the only tools – education, health and skill – that can eradicate poverty through generation of wealth in the economy and providing productive employment while ensuring economic growth. These programmes only endeavour to keep them below the bottom of the development ladder, by ensuring mere subsistence without any real empowerment. Actually in the name of employment, MNREGA is a scheme for the distribution of doles, and that too one that is poorly targeted. It is only a palliative, and one that works sub-optimally too while draining precious resources that could have been utilised to create assets, capacity and skill.  PMGSY Government had launched the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in December 2000 to provide all-weather access to eligible unconnected habitations as part of a poverty reduction strategy. PMGSY is a 100% Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Rs 0.75/ litre out of the Cess on HSD is earmarked for this Programme. The primary objective of the PMGSY is to provide connectivity, by way of an all-weather road (with necessary culverts and cross-drainage structures, which is operable throughout the year), to the eligible unconnected habitations in the rural areas with a population of 500 persons and above. The work is to be awarded to road contractors after following the usual tender procedures. To avoid overlap, it was stipulated that same work could not be taken up under MNREGA and PMGSY. This was unnecessary because PMGSY links villages with expensive asphalt roads, while MNREGA, with a ban on contractors, builds only mud roads. Both need only unskilled labourers, while under PMGSY they work under the supervision of skilled or semi-skilled workers. Between 2019-25 BE, the expenditure / allocation for MNREGA and PMGSY were respectively Rs 5.66 lakh crore and Rs 97000 crore only.  PMGSY Vs MNREGA : 2024 PMGSY MNREGA Road Sanctioned: 8.12 lakh Km Asset created since inception: Rs 8.56 crore Road Completed: 7.67 lakh Km (94%) Employment generation: 165.4 crore (2024-25) Sanctioned Feasible Habitations: 1.73 lakh Household benefited: 4.62 crore (2024-25) Connected Habitations: 1.72 (99%) Active workers: 13.19 crore (2024-25) Value of Projects: (Completed Roads + WIP): Rs DBT transactions: Rs 25.5 crore 3.71 lakh crore Convergence of MNREGA has now been Total Expenditure: 3.27 lakh crore (88%) established with PMAY (G), NRLM, Agri- Nutrition Garden and Unnati. UNNATI scheme aims to improve the livelihoods of MGNREGA workers by upgrading their skills and thereby to help them move from partial to full employment, reducing their reliance on MGNREGA Thank You