Events & Issues
New Delhi, 10 December 2012
Direct Cash Transfer
HONEST EXECUTION CRUCIAL
By
Col (Dr) PK
Vasudeva (Retd)
The
Election Commission has done well in questioning the timing of the Government’s
grand announcement of direct cash transfer and asking it to defer its
implementation in four districts of Gujarat
and two in Himachal Pradesh till the end of the Assembly elections. Though it
could not technically haul the Government for trying to influence the voters,
the Commission has by its observation unwittingly confirmed many a doubt that
the Government has the 2014 voter in mind and is in a tearing hurry.
While
the Government has touted the direct cash transfer scheme as a game-changer, it
would only turn out to be so, if it is implemented with necessary system and
support. It has its pros and cons. It may be beneficial in rural and urban
areas if it is followed by standing procedures and the public distribution
system (PDS) getting streamlined. This in turn would be extended to LPG, fertiliser,
MGNREGA and the Indira Awas Yojana, among others.
While
the Government proposes to make it operational from January 1 next year, as
part of its welfare programmes in 51 districts – in other words, transfer of
the subsidy amount directly into the bank account of the beneficiaries, doubts
are being raised whether it could kick off soon as planned.
This
scheme is based on the success story of the developed countries where subsidies
on agricultural goods are very heavy 40 to 52 per cent and paid to the farmers
as cash compensation through cash transfers. A study by the National Institute
of Public Finance and Policy on the benefits of direct cash transfers concedes
that while all forms of leakages cannot be plugged, those pertaining to
non-existent or duplicate beneficiaries can be weeded out through Aadhaar.
Even
if these leakages are conservatively estimated at less than 10 per cent of the
total subsidy bill, as the study has done, it amounts to a substantial annual
sum, given the subsidy bill of about Rs 300,000 crore. Therefore, there is no
need to be dismissive of the potential gains arising out of the Aadhaar
technology.
It
will help the migrant population avail of State services. The Rs 30,000 crore
or so saved can, in fact, be used to raise other welfare schemes, as it would
rob fiscal diehards of the argument that such expenditure is wasteful because
it does not reach the final beneficiary.
The
benefits will be perceptible in areas where fake identities are the norm, such
as in MGNREGA, pension and scholarship payouts. In the case of LPG subsidy,
where the beneficiaries include taxpayers, correct identification could enhance
tax compliance. The same model could be extended to diesel subsidy, depriving
private vehicles of the benefit and bringing their owners under tax scrutiny.
The diversion of fertiliser to other uses can be checked.
According
to noted banker and Chairman Infosys K V Kamath the programme would help reduce
budgetary deficit. Further, the seepage in subsidy distribution, which is as
high as 40 per cent, will potentially get eliminated through the implementation
of the scheme. Leakages will occur, no matter how competent the delivery
system, if short supply of services is not tackled, is his opinion.
In
any case, cash transfers are not an unmitigated evil. ‘Cash transfer’ in urban
centres for food grains, LPG, etc., is better than picking some remote rural
district only to claim that the scheme has failed for various reasons as given
below.
Firstly,
while cash transfers can be universal in coverage, international experience
shows that cash transfers are the first step in narrow targeting of transfers
and a move away from universal access to basic goods. Cash transfers succeeded
in Mexico and Brazil because the excluded population was a
tiny one of the total population, unlike in India where malnutrition persists
on a mass scale. To illustrate, in 2009, the proportion of malnourished
children, defined on the basis of weight for age, was less than two per cent in
Mexico and six per cent in Brazil as compared to 46 per cent in India.
Secondly,
cash transfers are associated with immediate and steep reductions in the real
value of the subsidy. Assume the Government transfers Rs 500 per family per
month from January 1 in lieu of 25 kg of rice, based on a market price of Rs 20
per kg of rice. Within a few months or even few weeks, with inflation and
manipulation by local shops, the real value of the Rs 500 may fall to 10 kg of
rice per month.
Thirdly,
the closing down of the Public Distribution System, which is an integral part
of the food production-procurement-storage-distribution system, will adversely
affect production and procurement and destroy India’s self-reliance in respect of
food grain.
The best way to kill a good idea is
to implement it badly. One hopes that direct cash transfer of Government funds
under various welfare schemes to the bank accounts of their intended
beneficiaries does not meet this fate. For, it is too good an idea to be
discarded, notwithstanding all the vested interests that stand to lose from its
success. All the more reason, then, for the Government to take extra care in
demonstrating its feasibility on the ground, thereby silencing the prophets of
doom – including those for whom welfare programmes are a means for lining their
own pockets.
It is in this context that reports
of beneficiaries not receiving any money in their bank accounts, even in select
blocks where direct payment of subsidy against kerosene purchases at market
rates is being tried out on a pilot scale, make for disturbing reading. It is
almost as though there is organised sabotage at work.
The blame for this lies with the
Government. To start with, there was this unseemly spat between the Home
Ministry and the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), with the
former even questioning the latter’s authority to issue ‘Aadhaar’ numbers to
every Indian resident linked to the biometric fingerprints-cum-iris profile
specific to that individual. To add to this was the confusion over the validity
of Aadhaar as an official identity document, with banks not accepting it for
opening of accounts. Given that the entire success of direct cash transfer
rests on the twin pillars of the Aadhaar platform and financial inclusion.
Instead of tying up these loose
ends, the Government – clearly in response to the current electorally
surcharged environment – has suddenly announced that payments under 29 welfare
schemes will be made directly to beneficiaries’ bank accounts, which are
Aadhaar-enabled to guard against impersonation.
While not disputing the advantages
of direct transfer, more so from the standpoint of curbing ‘leakage’ of public
funds to undeserving beneficiaries, there is equal need to ensure its success
on the ground. To that extent, trying it out first in urban centres – where the
possibility of even the poor having bank accounts is higher and the
availability of LPG, food grains, hospitals and other services sought to be
subsidised is also better – would make more sense. A bird in hand is better
than two in a bush. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|