Holes in social security

The social protection architecture emerging in India is chaotic. It’s also unbalanced — groups with little political leverage seem to be losing out on even existing levels of protection

SOCIAL SECURITY IS a human right, according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The ILO’S Recommendation of 2012 has called for all nations to institute a “social protection floor”. According to the ILO’S World Social Protection Report, 2022, India spends too little on social protection. As the events of 2020 and 2021 reminded us, precariousness and vulnerabilities remain concerns, with informal employment in India as high as 90 per cent of the workforce.

However, between 2019 and 2024, we have seen a chaotic, slow, but steady expansion of social protection programmes and schemes for vulnerable households. These have largely been impelled by political-economy considerations. A Crisil report in 2023 found that in the 11 states studied, the share of the economy (gross state domestic product) devoted to social welfare expenditures increased from 1.2-1.3 per cent on average in 2017-18 to about 1.6 per cent in 2022-23. This trend has continued in 2023-24 with several newly elected state governments opting for social protection measures. In the last few weeks, three states — Himachal, Delhi and Chhattisgarh — have announced new income transfer schemes for women.

It’s well known that, to begin with, the central government opposed the expansion of social welfare programmes, including the MGNREGA. However, an income transfer scheme for farmers was introduced just before the 2019 general elections. During the Covid pandemic, the MGNREGA and the National Food Security Scheme were expanded. Currently, cereal distribution is free for 800 million households under the National Food Security Act. For a government that has proclaimed a dramatic decline in poverty and hunger and a doubling of farmers’ income, these schemes can find justification only on political grounds.

In the run-up to the 2019 general elections, the Congress had mooted a modified basic income scheme, “Nyay”. Versions of it were implemented by governments run by the party in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. Non-congress and non-bjp governments in states such as Delhi, West Bengal, Kerala and Tamil Nadu have also implemented several new measures in the last five years. Bjpruled states, notably Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, have not lagged far behind. Congress-run governments in states such as Karnataka and Telangana and earlier in Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have targeted farmers, women, and the youth with social security schemes.

Increasingly, women have come to occupy centrestage in the emerging social protection architecture. Schemes covering education expenses, free public transport, subsidised LPG, and cash transfers have been floated. As noted earlier, two states — Delhi and Himachal under AAP and Congress governments — have announced cash income transfer schemes for women, whereas the new BJP government in Chhattisgarh has announced the Mahtari Vandan programme. Delhi has set aside Rs 2,000 crore in its 2024-25 budget for the implementation of the scheme.

The Centre made a beginning by launching the Ujjwala scheme in 2016, providing subsidised LPG gas cylinders to poor women. The scheme has now been extended till February 2025.

When the Covid emergency struck in 2020, the Modi government announced the transfer of three instalments of Rs 500 each to women holding Jan Dhan Yojana bank accounts. Regular cash transfer schemes for women, with varying eligibility conditions, have been implemented in several states. The “Ladli Behna” scheme of the last Madhya Pradesh government was seen as a popular programme. Under it, Rs 1,250 per month was given to poor women beneficiaries. Tamil Nadu has recently implemented the Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Scheme under which Rs 1,000 is transferred per month to women above the age of 21 with a household income of less than Rs 2.5 lakh. Under its guarantee programmes, the Congress has introduced the Mahalakshmi and the Gruha Lakshmi cash transfer programmes for women in Telangana and Karnataka respectively.

Focusing on women is seen as good politics. It’s also good economics. Several studies have shown that cash transfers to women increase the proportion of expenditure on items of basic consumption and education. This, in turn, benefits households, and under certain conditions, has positive implications for women’s empowerment.

Other than in Rajasthan, the social protection programmes introduced since 2019 have no legal backing — they are rooted in paternalism and can be changed or withdrawn through administrative orders. Even the names of the women-centred income transfer programmes, crafted by diverse governments, are based on perceptions of women's role in maleheaded families. Women here are seen only as beneficiaries.

That the central government’s schemes have consistently revolved around the persona (and the image) of the Prime Minister does little to change their strong paternalistic pitch — this has remained so even after the shift to the omnibus canvass of “Modi guarantees”. In contrast, the Congress has often evoked the language of rights and justice (“Nyay”) and it is also credited with introducing the MGNREGA and the NFSA. But on the ground, its schemes too have remained purely administrative, especially in recent times.

In the absence of a legal guarantee, is there any assurance of the stability of such welfare schemes? The manner in which schemes were introduced in the manifestos of political parties and their continued implementation suggests that political competition could be a key stabilising force. States which face the least political competition (such as Gujarat) have been the least proactive in introducing fresh programmes. In contrast, the new governments of Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have rejigged, rather than withdrawn, popular schemes put in place by their predecessors.

As the 2024 Lok Sabha elections approach, the Congress has already announced “Yuva Nyay” and “Nari Nyay” schemes. We are likely to see more such announcements by other political parties. But to reiterate a point made earlier, the social protection architecture that is emerging is chaotic. It's also unbalanced — groups such as the very young and the old, who have little political leverage, seem to be losing out on even existing levels of protection. Moreover, work-related precarities have taken a back seat. The Social Security Code 2020 remains unimplemented even today. Thus, the goal of instituting a credible social protection framework, consistent with India’s level of development, remains very much a work-in-progress.

The writer was member of the erstwhile National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector

In the absence of a legal guarantee, is there any assurance of the stability of such welfare schemes? The manner in which schemes were introduced in the manifestos of political parties and their continued implementation suggests that political competition could be a key stabilising force. States which face the least political competition (such as

Gujarat) have been the least proactive in introducing fresh programmes. In contrast, the new governments of Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have rejigged, rather than withdrawn, popular schemes put in place by their predecessors.

C R Sasikumar