Que. Examine the pattern and trend of public expenditure on social services in the post-reforms period in India. To what extent this has been in consonance with achieving the objective of inclusive growth?
भारत में सुधारों के उपरान्त की अवधि में, सामाजिक सेवाओं पर सार्वजनिक व्यय के स्वरूप एवं प्रवृत्ति का परीक्षण कीजिए। किस सीमा तक यह समावेशी संवृद्धि के उद्देश्य को प्राप्त करने के अनुरूप है?
Structure of the Answer
(i) Introduction: Outline India’s increasing “public expenditure on social services” in the “post-reform” era, aimed at supporting “inclusive growth” through welfare-oriented policies.
(ii) Main Body: Examine the trends in public spending, their impact on “social inclusivity,” and alignment with “inclusive growth” objectives.
(iii) Conclusion: Conclude by evaluating if public expenditure has sufficiently addressed “inclusive growth” goals and suggest areas for enhanced “social spending.”
Introduction
India’s “public expenditure” on “social services” in the post-reform period reflects a shift towards “inclusive growth.” This transformation aims to address socio-economic inequalities by focusing on sectors like health, education, and poverty alleviation for equitable development.
Trend in Public Expenditure on Social Services
The pattern of “public spending” post-reforms highlights both quantitative increases and shifts in spending priorities across various social sectors.
(i) Shift Towards Targeted Welfare Programs: Increased allocations to “targeted welfare schemes” like the “National Health Mission” and “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act” (MGNREGA) reflect efforts to reduce “rural-urban” inequalities.
(ii) Emphasis on Education Spending: The “Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan” and later, the “Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan” marked consistent investment in education to achieve “universal literacy” and improve access to “quality education.”
(iii) Focus on Health Infrastructure: Expenditure on health saw a rise with initiatives like “Ayushman Bharat,” aiming to expand “health insurance coverage” for vulnerable populations, emphasizing “universal health access.”
(iv) Increased Social Security and Pension Schemes: Programs like “Atal Pension Yojana” and “National Social Assistance Program” indicate a shift towards securing “income security” for elderly and vulnerable groups.
(v) Boost in Skill Development Programs: Post-reforms, “Skill India” initiatives reflect investments in “vocational training,” enhancing “employment opportunities” for youth and driving economic inclusivity.
Public Expenditure Alignment with Inclusive Growth Goals
Analysis of spending trends shows varying success in achieving “inclusive growth” objectives, with notable advancements and areas for improvement.
(i) Reduction in Poverty Levels: Increased spending has facilitated “poverty reduction,” though regional disparities remain. Programs like MGNREGA have created “rural employment,” supporting “socio-economic inclusivity.”
(ii) Promotion of Gender Equality: Schemes like “Beti Bachao Beti Padhao” focus on “female empowerment” and gender equality, though fund allocations are sometimes limited, affecting “women’s participation” in growth.
(iii) Support for Marginalized Communities: Investments in Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe welfare have promoted “social equity,” yet gaps in budget implementation for backward areas remain a challenge.
(iv) Rural-Urban Disparity Reduction: Public expenditure on rural infrastructure and “housing schemes” like “Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana” (PMAY) has aimed to reduce “urban-rural inequality.”
(v) Investment in Sustainable Development: Green investments in social spending, like “Swachh Bharat Mission,” integrate “environmental inclusivity” with growth, aiming to benefit all sections of society.
Limitations and Areas Needing Improvement
Despite notable gains, certain limitations in spending allocations and efficiency impact the potential for “inclusive growth.”
(i) Regional Disparities in Fund Allocation: Spending disparities across states hinder uniform growth, with some regions lagging in “health and education” infrastructure, affecting “inclusive development.”
(ii) Underfunding in Health and Education Sectors: Despite budget increases, health and education remain underfunded relative to GDP, limiting the impact on “human capital formation.”
(iii) Delayed Program Implementation: Administrative delays in welfare program rollout reduce the benefits of “public expenditure,” especially in rural and marginalized areas.
(iv) Inadequate Focus on Urban Poor: Urban-focused spending often overlooks issues facing “urban poor,” resulting in insufficient support for “urban inclusivity.”
(v) Fiscal Constraints and Policy Gaps: Fiscal limitations and gaps in “policy coherence” impact the scale and effectiveness of public expenditure in achieving “long-term inclusivity.”
Conclusion
While post-reforms “public expenditure” has achieved meaningful strides towards “inclusive growth,” addressing regional disparities and enhancing implementation efficiency can further align spending with “socio-economic inclusivity” and the long-term goals of equitable development.
