Syllabus Connect :- General Studies -Paper II (Indian Economy and issues relating to planning, mobilization, of resources, growth, development and employment)
Mains Connect:-
- Discuss the status of financial inclusion of Indian Women and the suggest measures to improve it in light of Denarau Action Plan.
Over the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic has thrown existing inequalities into sharp focus. While the nation’s attention has been drawn to the plight of migrant workers and farmers, the worsening gender gap has not received similar attention.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]
Analysis of the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy’s Consumer Pyramids Household Survey data by researchers at Azim Premji University showed that women were seven times more likely to lose their jobs during last year’s lockdown, and 11 times more likely to not return to work.
An ongoing survey on micro, small and medium enterprises by Global Alliance for Mass Entrepreneurship and LEAD at Krea University shows that women-owned small businesses were hit more badly by the pandemic; 43% of women-owned enterprises surveyed reported monthly profit less than ₹10,000, compared to just 16% of units owned by men.
India’s government was quick to announce and transfer ₹500 per month for three months of lockdown last year to women through their Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) accounts. This seamless transfer of money was made possible by the Centre’s direct benefit transfer-PMJDY linkage, but more importantly, this could happen because the government knew which accounts were held by women.
Unfortunately, the lack of gender-disaggregated data in the banking sector overall meant that only PMJDY account holders received the benefit, and many other deserving women were left out. According to estimates by the Yale Economic Growth Center, more than half of India’s women poor missed the cash transfers.
Even though 55% of PMJDY accounts are owned by women, making for 232.1 million accounts, the problem goes two ways—not all poor women have PMJDY accounts and not all PMJDY accounts belong to the poor. The Financial Inclusion Insight survey from 2017 used by the Yale study showed that while 78% of poor women respondents reported having a bank account, just 23% reported owning a PMJDY account.
In the absence of official numbers, we depend on surveys to get a sense of the trends and extent of the challenge. Global Findex 2017 showed an immense improvement on inclusion with the PMJDY. The percentage of women in India who reported owning a bank account, or an account at any other financial institution, rose from 26% in 2011 to 43% in 2014, and to 77% in 2017.
The gender gap in terms of account ownership effectively reduced from 20 percentage points in 2014 to just 6 percentage points in 2017. But the gender gap in the usage of these accounts stayed high at 11 percentage points.
While economic data is usually spliced by states, geographies (urban-rural) or sectors, the gender angle stays out of the common discourse. So though we all know that women employees and entrepreneurs traditionally face more challenges than men, the extent of disparity remains in the shadows. The case for gender-disaggregated data in banking and financial sectors is a first step towards closing the gender-gap in India.
As a member of the Alliance for Financial Inclusion, India had pledged to close the gender gap in financial inclusion by implementing the Denarau Action Plan adopted in Fiji at the April 2016 Global Policy Forum. To redeem that pledge, we must first generate gender-wise data. The country’s regional and social heterogeneity makes it crucial that this data be granular. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Department of Financial Services (DFS) need to get this implemented.
Second, apart from gender-specific data, there is another important initiative that the DFS and RBI should commit themselves to. That is the appointment of more women as business correspondents (BCs) by banks. The pay-offs will be manifold for economic and social progress in the country.
One of the greatest challenges in increasing access to and usage of financial services by women is the time and cost expended on reaching a bank outlet. Although it is gratifying that a forthcoming working paper, The Fintech Gender Gap from the Bank for International Settlements, finds that Indian women are as likely to use fintech as Indian men, there are bound to be wide regional and rural- versus-urban disparities in this finding.
That is another case for granular data. In states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, etc., where the mobility of women is severely restricted, the situation is likely more serious. Women, in rural areas especially, are reluctant to visit bank branches, where they are often dealt with summarily by male staff.
Understandably then, they are more comfortable if bank agents meet them at their own homes. If these agents are women, the trust factor is magnified. However, women agents form less than 10% of the total agent network. So far, the focus has been on using women in self help groups (SHGs) as ‘bank sakhis’.
This initiative has worked well where SHGs are already in place. However, measures to recruit and train women BCs would help widen the spread of banking, enable the financial independence of women, help them plan their family finances, and facilitate women entrepreneurship, both directly, through credit, and indirectly, with BCs acting as role models.
Denarau Action Plan:-
Did you know that more than one billion women are still excluded from formal financial services?
According to the 2017 Global Findex, close to one billion women are still excluded from the financial system, and there is a 9% gender gap in account ownership’s across developing economies. This gender gap has remained unchanged since 2011, despite overall progress towards financial inclusion.
The Denarau Action Plan identifies measures AFI (Alliance for financial Inclusion) members can take to increase the number of women with access to quality and affordable financial services globally and close the financial inclusion gender gap, noting that the goals of financial access, usage and quality should be pursued in parallel and in a responsible and sustainable manner.
RBI of India is a member.
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)