Do new schemes ahead of elections amount to ‘voter bribes’?

Your initial thoughts.

Vikas Rawal: I think implementing social welfare programmes in response to popular needs, reflected through the political processes is necessary. That said, if this happens just before elections, if it is accompanied by weakening systems of evaluation, independent regulation and so on… And if it does not result in establishing a robust system of social welfare and merely ends in providing election soaps, then there is a problem.

Also read | Women sided with Mahayuti for Ladki Bahin Yojana’s monthly dole

Reetika Khera: Not so long ago in the southern States, parties promised mixer-grinders. At that time too, the media labelled these manifesto promises as freebies. I think of cash transfers as a modern avatar of those electoral promises. Labelling them as bribes would be wrong, just as it was wrong to label electoral promises as freebies. I do have reservations about certain cash transfers, though I support other kinds of cash transfers, like old age pensions and maternity benefits. What you’re probably getting at is that these promises reflect the flaw in our democracy. The only time that ordinary people get a hearing and are remembered by political parties is during elections and it is a pity that electoral promises are reduced to small, visible and short-term gains such as these cash transfers. But for those who are on the margins and largely ignored by the powers that be, they’ll just take what they get right?

Also read | Lost votes to Ladki Bahin Yojana campaign and Yogi Adityanath’s slogans: Sharad Pawar

There’s a related question – how much do such promises — mixer-grinder or cash transfers, actually influence voter behaviour? I don’t know the answer to that, but as a voter, what would stop me from taking what is due to me through such interventions and yet apply my mind independently to what is a pressing issue for the country and decide who to vote for?

Are DBTs then a failure of the government’s attempt to provide better livelihoods, and substitute it with one-time cash transfer schemes?

Reetika Khera: The question arises, do these cash transfers displace spending on health and education? From the point of view of the women who get these cash transfers, they have welcomed it, because they are often vulnerable. But what are cash transfers taking away from, if anything? Fiscally, that’s one important question. I was looking at the objectives for the cash transfers to women — what are they trying to achieve? There are three objectives which I’ve come across — one is they (governments) say economic independence for women, another to improve their health and nutrition. And the third, especially in Tamil Nadu, that it was compensation for all the unpaid domestic work. Each of these raise questions. Take economic independence. Isn’t that better achieved by making employment opportunities available to them? Why is the central government starving MNREGA (the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) of funds? It would give women much more money. In Tamil Nadu for instance, they’re getting ₹12,000 a year (as part of the State’s cash transfer scheme). If women were to get 100 days of MNREGA employment, they would get ₹29,000 a year – more than double what they get through these cash transfers. I talked to a woman recently in Chengalpattu and she absolutely prefers employment over cash transfers. The second objective of health and nutrition can also be achieved much better through providing eggs in anganwadis and midday meals. In many North Indian States children are not getting nutritious food. The third objective is compensation for unpaid domestic work: are you then saying that if women are supposed to be doing domestic work only, then they should just be given some money for it? Wouldn’t it be much better to think harder about how to change gender norms? So, the problem with these cash promises is not that it is a “bribe”, but rather what are they trying to achieve? Where do they fit into our conception of a welfare state?

MNREGA was largely credited for the return of the UPA alliance to power for the second term. Could this question then be twisted to say that even the 100-day job scheme amounted to a bribe? Or is it reducing the larger conception of welfare itself as being opportunistic?

Vikas Rawal: I think we both have agreed that at least it’s not correct to term these as bribes. You have created such a robust framework with MNREGA, that even a government that’s completely ideologically opposed to it has not been able to undo it. It has been forced to acknowledge its importance and to carry forward the programme. The point is that in India, social welfare spending is just too little.

Also read | Women voters: The ‘silent voter’ factor in the Maharashtra election

Reetika Khera: As far as the promises of cash are concerned, the media should reflect on its tendency to term them as bribes or freebies. That doesn’t mean these cash transfers are without any concerns. The main issue to me is — are cash transfers taking away from welfare spending of other kinds? To give you an example – Karnataka’s cash transfer budget for this financial year is ₹28,000 crore — that’s twice as much as the Union’s budget on mid-day meals. Like I said, I have reservations about some cash transfers while I support others. The national Food Security Act, for instance, which is taking a sort-of a life cycle approach: maternity benefits for pregnant and lactating women, anganwadis for children under 6, midday meals for school going children. And then there’s the PDS. Now the maternity benefits is a cash transfer programme — it’s ₹6,000 through the Pradhan Mantri Mathrubhumi Dhana Yojana. That is fixing a big gap in our welfare architecture. We had the maternity benefits for women in the organised sector since 1961. But most women work in the unorganised sector and their right to maternity benefits was not recognised until this 2013 Food Security Act. I support the cash transfer because women get it at a very vulnerable time of their life.

Also read | Ladki Bahin : A look at cash transfer schemes for women in seven States

Vikas Rawal: If you look at the implementation of welfare schemes since the 1980s, we had various systems of independent evaluation. The Planning Commission used to have an evaluation wing. The National Sample Survey would have survey questions that one could use to assess. CAG would do performance audits of different schemes. All these have been undermined now. We have a situation where evaluation of government programmes has been systematically undermined, and that’s a very serious problem, particularly during these kinds of cash transfers. You have evidence to suggest there may be massive corruption in some of these schemes. Historically, schemes that have involved provisioning of goods and services, employment, health facilities, schooling, are where leakages have been less.

Reetika Khera: I have a slightly different view. Corruption and targeting were two big issues with earlier interventions. Corruption was a serious issue with the PDS. It has been an issue with MNREGA. And it remains an issue with the new cash transfers. We must be vigilant no matter which scheme, what form the transfer takes. In the case of cash transfers, it has created a whole army of middle-men through whom these so-called “direct” benefits are transferred. They’re actually not direct at all, because in many rural areas there is no proper banking network. And so you have banking correspondents who people have to go and withdraw their money from. These business correspondents are just like the earlier middle-men, who cheated on cement and bricks and wages. On targeting, with MNREGA, the attraction was, those who were not getting minimum wage work would show up. But in these cash transfers, there aren’t such robust self-targeting mechanisms…

Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast

Published – November 29, 2024 01:40 am IST