Context: Row over cash transfer promises ahead of the Delhi election raises a question: Are these schemes effective welfare measures or born of short-term transactional politics?
Relevance of the Topic:Mains: Cash Transfers- Pros and Cons, Way Forward
Cash Transfer Schemes in Indian Context
- Cash Transfer Schemes are meant as a safety net for disadvantaged groups or to encourage better access and utilisation of health and educational services.
- In India, one of the oldest national cash transfer schemes is the National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP), which provides pensions to the elderly, widowed and disabled who are unable to participate in economic activities.
- But cash transfers have now become the new magic wand that can be used for any problem.
Politics in Cash Transfers
- For political parties, cash transfer is the go-to solution for anything from women empowerment to agrarian distress to unemployment to poverty alleviation.
- For instance, incumbent governments in Maharashtra and Jharkhand successfully utilised cash transfer schemes targeted at women voters, contributing significantly to their re-election.
- Similarly, states like Telangana and Odisha adopted cash transfers to address agrarian distress.
- These schemes have since been extended to tackle unemployment, with several states implementing or promising direct financial assistance for the unemployed. Whether these actually deliver on the issues at hand is hardly a consideration as long as they deliver on the political front.
- Easy Implementation and Tangible results:
- The appeal of cash transfers lies in their simplicity and immediate results.
- Their fungible and unconditional nature makes them highly attractive to beneficiaries.
- With the improvement in financial inclusion, these schemes are easy to implement and provide direct, tangible benefits to voters.
- Such schemes also bypass bureaucratic inefficiencies and middlemen.
Arguments against Cash Transfer Schemes
- Not a Panacea:
- The issue lies with the basic premise that cash transfers can resolve all problems. Such an approach trivialises the complexity of the issues at hand.
- Encourage Competitive Populism:
- Cash transfer schemes create a tendency of competitive populism with political parties and governments vying with each other to increase the scale and scope of such transfers.
- Need for Policy Interventions:
- Most reforms require policy interventions for sustainable results. However, these are incapable of producing tangible gains in the short run, thus encouraging political parties to resort to unsustainable cash transfer politics.
- Unhealthy fiscal strains:
- Careless cash transfers create excessive fiscal strain on state and central government finances. This happens at the cost of essential spending on health, education, nutrition or basic infrastructure.
- Decreased spending in beneficial schemes:
- While new cash transfers have been announced, spending on existing basic social protection has been cut short. Spending on NSAP, MGNREGA and the maternity-entitlement scheme remains frozen with decline in real terms.
Arguments supporting Cash Transfer Schemes
- Women Empowerment:
- Need:
- India ranks poorly in most global indices of women empowerment. The 2023 Global Gender Gap report by the World Economic Forum ranked India at 129 out of 146 countries.
- India witnessed decreasing participation of women in the workforce in the first two decades of this century, despite stellar economic growth.
- Benefits of cash & in-kind transfers:
- Directly allow women to tackle the multiple barriers they face in accessing education and job opportunities. Helps them to live a life of dignity.
- For instance, Delhi’s free bus rides scheme for women led to a 24% increase in paid work and employment for women from marginalised sections of society.
- Need:
- Improved Standard of Life for the low & middle class:
- Delhi introduced multiple subsidies- free electricity, free water, etc.- targeted at the lower and middle classes.
- This has provided a crucial social safety net to these groups and allowed them to live a life of dignity. It has also boosted their purchasing power, which creates demand and supports economic growth.
- Improvement in Social Growth Indicators:
- Evidence from 119 developing countries running unconditional cash assistance programs shows that recipients of these transfers increased their spending on nutrition, schooling and health.
Way Forward
- Balance Welfare schemes with Development:
- Cash transfers should not happen at the cost of making adequate investments into building human capital or providing essential public services to all.
- For instance, the Delhi Model of governance has invested 40% of the annual budget in health and education. Delhi has also made investments in infrastructure and provision of essential public services- electricity, metro, green mobility, water pipelines, drainage amenities, etc.
- In comparison, most Indian states spend little on their crumbling education and public health systems, even as they have introduced cash transfers.
- Assessing the implications on the State’s Finances:
- For instance,
- Delhi’s budget consistently remained in revenue surplus over the past decade.
- Delhi’s overall debt-to-GDP ratio reduced from 7% to 4% – among the lowest for any Indian state.
- Delhi has shown resilient economic performance with the lowest inflation, among the lowest unemployment rates in India and GDP growth at par with rest of India.
- Likewise, it is necessary to ensure the states’ fiscal limits are not breached or overburdened with welfare measures.
- For instance,
- Encourage Policy interventions:
- Policy reforms alone can produce sustainable results in the long run. This requires consensus-building across stakeholders with active participation and investment from the government machinery.
What is needed is a nuanced understanding of the role of cash transfers in supplementing and expanding the social safety nets rather than a quick-fix solution guaranteed to deliver political dividends. The costs of such profligacy in the long run are likely to be much more harmful than the short-term benefits they deliver.