Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 This living paper has been written by Shrayana Bhattacharya (Senior Economist) and Sutirtha Sinha Roy (Economist) at the World Bank with feedback from Junaid Ahmad, Yamini Aiyar, John Blomquist, Sekhar Bonu, Camilla Holmemo, Qaiser Khan, Varad Pande, Stefano Paternostro and Ambrish Shahi. Authors are grateful to the DBT Mission, Department of Economic Affairs (GoI) and NITI Ayog for valuable feedback. All views expressed in this paper, and any errors, are our own. Data collection has been supported by the World Bank Group. However, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect WBG official policies. The team thanks Mahesh Vyas and Kaushik Krishnan for CMIE’s data collection. This paper is a short summary of survey findings. An expanded version shall be published by the World Bank Social Protection Discussion Paper Series for June 2021. Subsequent versions of the paper shall discuss social protection responses to the second wave of the pandemic and poverty impacts. For further information, contact: sbhattacharya3@worldbank.org Introduction delivery mechanisms and benefit delivery standards is likely to be available by next quarter in 2021. This paper is part of the World Bank’s efforts to Following the WHO declaration of a global measure and monitor results for its Development pandemic on March 11, 2020 the national Policy Operation to strengthen India’s social government declared a COVID emergency on protection architecture. It presents a stock-taking of March 14, 2020 and decided to implement India’s social safety net response to COVID-19. The what was initially a 21-day national lockdown analysis aims to identify how government efforts to (later extended to 42 days) on March 21, 2020. provide relief to poor and vulnerable households have Recognizing that the national lockdown would fared between April and August 2020. severely impact the poor and the vulnerable, the national government launched an important and The paper provides stylized facts on coverage and ambitious social protection initiative called the targeting of welfare measures under the Pradhan Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) for individual on March 26, 2020. states and at the national level. This analysis relies on a nationally representative household survey The PMGKY program is not a new scheme, on social protection, conducted in partnership with rather an integrated package scaling up cash and the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). food assistance through pre-existing programs The current analysis focus on two important which have large outreach and strong delivery parameters: (i) coverage (what percentage of the mechanisms: The PMGKY package costs the population received benefits from the scheme) and Government approximately USD 23 billion. It uses (ii) targeting (whether the scheme benefitted the India’s well-developed Direct Benefit Transfer poorest and vulnerable households). Additional (DBT) system to transfer benefits directly to the analysis on the modes of the social protection bank accounts of beneficiaries from the treasury, Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 | 3 thereby ensuring timely payments to those in need. To streamline the presentation of results, this The identification of beneficiaries relies on India’s paper exclusively focuses on delivery of food and near-universal programs, supplemented by digitized cash benefits through the PMGKY package. This Socio-Economic Census data, state level databases is due to significantly lower levels of enrollment in maintained for the National Food Security Act 2013 EPFO as compared to India’s cash transfer network and the Aadhaar digital ID network. and its public works and food subsidy programs. The paper reports the share of households that The PMGKY package provided near-universal and received food, cash transfers and both forms of robust support till November 2020; measures assistance under the PMGKY program. While other may be expanded in specific states or clusters surveys have reported coverage and benefit receipt depending on how the COVID-19 crisis evolves: information related to PMGKY, the current analysis As per administrative data released by the national benefits from a robust, nationally representative and government, for its initial phase of three-months, panel survey of households to better quantify the PMGKY delivered cash transfers to 320 million coverage and targeting parameters of the program. beneficiary bank accounts. Cash was scaled up The analysis begins with a short description of through the following pre-existing schemes: the study methodology, sampling information (i) social pensions through the National Social and limitations of the data (Section 2). Section 3 Assistance Program (NSAP); (ii) transfers to provides an analysis of the performance of the core women bank holders under the Pradhan Mantri schemes comprising PMGKY along coverage and Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY); (iii) front-loading cash targeting. In lieu of the survey results and global support to farmers through the Pradhan Mantri experience, the final section concludes by taking Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KSN) and (iv) support stock of India’s social protection architecture to construction workers through the Building and and identifying key building blocks for a future Construction Workers Welfare Fund. Employment reform path. through cash-for-work support has been triggered by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). To ensure supply of food and fuel through the national lockdown, the Data and sampling program provided additional food rations to 236 million households enrolled in the Public Distribution Household level data on awareness, enrollment System (PDS) database, covering nearly 61% of and receipt of transfers under individual program India’s population1 and nearly 90% of all households; components of the PMGKY package were captured and LPG gas cylinders to 80 million households. as part of the Center for Monitoring Indian Economy’s The program also topped-up government (CMIE) consumer pyramid household survey contributions to social insurance funds (EPFO) (CPHS). CPHS is a stratified multi-stage survey for low-wage workers in small and medium with towns and villages from the 2011 population enterprises and provides portable in-kind and cash census as its primary sampling units (PSU) and the support to migrants in hot-spots through a sub- physical household structure as its ultimate sample national umbrella disaster fund. Targeted health unit (USU). The first stage stratum of CPHS is a insurance for COVID-19 essential workers have spatial unit called the Homogeneous Region (HR), also been implemented and extended initially to representing a set of contiguous districts within a March 2021. 1 The PDS allocates benefits per household member through a ration card. The ration card is issued to a household. In April 2020, government administrative data reported that 803 million individuals were enrolled into the PDS within 236 million ration cards. 4 | Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 state that share similar agro-climatic conditions, compared to pre-lockdown levels3. This is likely urbanization levels, female literacy rates and because CMIE had in its possession phone numbers number of households per the 2011 Census. CPHS for approximately 92 percent of CPHS sample contains 102 HRs from 28 states and 514 districts. households. The rural and urban samples of CPHS respectively comprise of 63,430 households from 3,965 villages The supplementary survey captured the extent and 110,975 urban households from 7,920 census and types of benefits received under each of enumeration block units (CEBs). CPHS contains a PMGKY’s constituent programs over the past larger fraction of urban households because of the one-month recall period. The questionnaire first greater diversity in Indian cities compared to rural asked members to report their knowledge of each India. Urban sample households also have a lower program and conditional on program awareness, weight to compensate for their larger shares in it fielded questions on household enrollment. the sample, resulting in nationally representative Further, conditional on prior enrollment, households estimates. were asked to report the amount received under each program in the past month. For Jan Dhan, As part of the 21st round of CPHS, CMIE in PM-KISAN, Ujjwala and Social pensions, enrollment collaboration with the World Bank, supplemented was established by asking households if any member its baseline survey with additional questions on had ever received these benefits through these knowledge, enrollment and access to PMGKY’s programs in the past. For PDS transfers and EPF constituent schemes: PDS rations, Jan Dhan Yojana, withdrawals, enrollment was defined as availability PM-KISAN, Ujjwala, Social pensions and Employee of a ration card and access to any employer- Provident Fund Schemes. The data was collected contributions from the provident fund respectively. over the 21st wave of the CPHS survey between 17th May and 31st August in 2020. The supplementary For analytical tractability, households are classified data was not collected in the first sixteen days of the as those that received food only, cash only and both wave due to a longer-than-expected survey startup food and cash benefits. Food benefits comprise time. This delay is not expected to materially bias the of access to PDS rations while cash comprises of analysis of the data2. transfers received under all PMGKY schemes except PDS and provident fund withdrawals. NREGA The 21st round of CPHS (May to August 2020) related cash receipts were not included in the coincided with the national-wide lockdown until July survey module and are excluded in this analysis. 2020 and followed by localized lockdowns across Additionally, EPF withdrawals are excluded in the India. As a result, CMIE adopted a combination of analysis (even though the survey captures this face-to-face and telephonic surveys, depending information) because of the smaller proportion of on localized lockdown rules. With the exception of households that are enrolled in the program. the first couple of weeks following the nation-wide lockdown, CMIE’s analysis suggests that the use of Households in the bottom two quintiles of the these multi-modal methods did not materially skew population weighted consumption distribution of the sample’s rural-urban proportion, state-wide the May-August 2020 survey round are referred to distribution and household-income distribution as “poor” in our analysis. CPHS collects monthly 2 CMIE surveyed 76,386 households during its May to August round. Due to the delayed start of the supplementary data collection process, we lost 8,356 records and have 68,030 households in our sample. 3 Additional details pertaining to the pre-and-post lockdown balance checks conducted by CMIE are available at: https://consumerpyramidsdx.cmie.com/kommon/bin/sr.php?kall=wdlkb&img=686689 Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 | 5 consumption expenditures for the past four emigrant member will be undertaken in later months in a wave. The expenditures from only updates of this paper the month prior to the survey is selected as the Prior to COVID-19, despite absolute poverty relevant welfare aggregate (to minimize recall reduction in the past two decades, half of India’s biases). Household expenditures for payments population was vulnerable with consumption to monthly installments, pocket-monies and levels precariously close to the poverty line. Ninety payments for insurance premiums are excluded percent of the Indian workforce is informal, without from our consumption aggregate. These access to significant savings or work-place based operations prepare the data set to be similar social protection benefits such as paid sick leave or to traditional cross-sectional NSS consumption social insurance. The Periodic Labour Force Survey expenditure surveys4. (2017-18) has found that only 47% of urban workers One limitation of the CPHS sample is however that have regular, salaried jobs. Even among workers in it excludes shelter-less households from its frame, formal employment, over 70% do not have contracts, thereby compromising the ability of the survey to 54% are not entitled to paid sick leave and 49% reflect conditions of the homeless and migrants. do not have any form of social security benefits. This is because the ultimate sampling unit for the These workers, who may not be identified as ‘poor’ survey is the physical housing structure. The impact as per the consumption data but are at grave risk of PMGKY on these group of households is therefore of falling into poverty due to wage and livelihood not reflected in the current analysis. Additionally, losses triggered by shrinking economic activity. In while CPHS collects information pertaining to this context of high vulnerability, it is important to emigrant members within households, this data highlight that non-poor populations, particularly the requires additional validation and comparisons with vulnerable segments of the lower middle-class, maybe established sources of migrant information such heavily impacted by the pandemic due to job losses. as Census and NSS. For this reason, the analysis Therefore, broad access to a package of assistance is of PMGKY package on households that have an also vital to future economic recovery. Early Results: Coverage and Targeting of PMGKY package Table 1:  Share of Households Receiving Benefits under the PMGKY Package Across Select Groups Share of All Households All-India Rural Urban Poor Not Male Headed Female Headed Who have Received Poor Household Households Food only 39.5% 37.9% 43.0% 41.5% 38.7% 33.1% 40.4% Cash only 6.1% 7.0% 4.3% 6.1% 6.1% 6.3% 6.1% Food and cash only 34.1% 40.0% 21.9% 39.8% 31.6% 45.4% 32.7% At least one social 79.7% 84.9% 69.1% 87.4% 76.4% 84.7% 79.2% protection benefit (food or cash) 4 All consumption expenditure values are deflated using CPI urban and rural data. We do not use the traditional CPI-AL and CPI-IW deflators because of the recent changes to base year introduced to the CPI-IW series by the Labour Ministry. 6 | Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 Coverage and outreach of the first round of India’s impacted salaried and lower-middle class workers social protection response has been impressive at as well as the poor. As mentioned earlier, the CMIE scale, reaching a majority of households. Between survey does not allow us to comment clearly on the May and August 2020, more than 87 percent of India’s share of migrant workers who accessed the PMGKY poorest households reported receiving at least one due to survey design. benefit – food or cash – under the PMGKY. Across the country, nearly 74% of all households received Delivery of benefits has been stronger in rural food through PDS allocations, 40% of households areas than urban locations. While nearly 85% received cash-transfers. Table 1 shows the fraction of all rural households’ report accessing food of households that received benefits under the or cash benefits following the pandemic, only different combinations of the program. Overall, 69.2% of urban households report the same. Cash 39.5% of households received food transfers only, transfers coverage in urban areas was 26.2 percent, 34% received food and cash transfers together, and compared to nearly half in rural areas. Within urban 6.1% received only cash transfers. Consistent with areas, a third of the urban poor report accessing the near-universal nature of the Public Distribution cash transfers. This rural-urban gap is critical System, both poor and non-poor households have given the first wave of the pandemic struck urban benefitted from food transfers during the crisis. centers in the country and signaled the need to However, nearly 46% of poor households received rebalance India’s social protection system towards cash compared to only 37.7% of non-poor households better coverage of urban areas. Social protection who received cash benefits. Fewer female headed in urban India may need more focus on cash and households appear to receive benefits relative to contributory insurance mechanisms – as these male-headed households. Since the PMJDY transfers areas have better banking infrastructure and were not restricted by BPL cards or government higher incomes. Two critical challenges lie ahead certified poverty status, the survey also finds that at for India’s social protection path in responding to least a third of non-poor households have received COVID-19 and future shocks. First, while India has cash transfers in the May-August period as well. This an elaborate set of program databases which enable is vital support as job losses from the pandemic have immediate release of cash-transfers in rural areas Graph 1: Share of Households Accessing Benefits and Enrolled in Social Protection Programs under PMGKY Households Accessing Benefits as a Share Enrollment Pre-Covid of Population 78.0% 90.1% 81.3% 65.5% 60.2% 47.0% 34.0% 26.5% 14.0% 2.8% 0.2% 1.1% Food Cash PF Food Cash PF Rural Urban Rural Urban Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 | 7 due to extensive reach of rural safety nets, parallel enrolled and registered with the government’s platforms in urban areas are at a very nascent stage NSAP social pension scheme. We acknowledge of development. For example, more than half of that this is a limited definition of eligibility at a the population in high income and urbanized states time of crisis, given many households may have such as Delhi are not enrolled in government social recently fallen into poverty due to the pandemic, protection schemes. Delhi’s population is not particularly in urban areas and may never have chronically poor and does not have government been enrolled into any government program. The programs tailored to its distinct needs and risk subsequent phase of this paper shall drill-down on profiles. Urban platforms which link beneficiary these new-poor households who have faced income information with bank details are critical to ensure and employment shocks due to the pandemic and rapid delivery of income-support in the case of any track their access to social protection benefits after future crisis. Finally, employment programs such PMGKY was discontinued in November 2020. as MGNREGS do not have any large-scale urban Furthermore, there are state level variations in parallel in cities impacted by job losses. delivery standards. For example, data from states Food delivery has been strong across states, such as Madhya Pradesh and Odisha – where benefitting from the near-universal PDS database. majority of households are enrolled in both food Across all states, households report accessing food and cash programs – shows less than a third of transfers during the lockdown period. As Graph 1 households accessed both benefits due to them. shows, more than 80% of all Indian households were These states have invested in strong delivery enrolled in the PDS database, whereby they were mechanisms for the PDS and cash transfers. The low already identified for benefits. As a result, majority rate of benefit disbursal maybe due to the timing households were able to use their ration cards of the survey. It is also possible that many eligible to receive additional grains due to them through households did not travel to the local bank or Fair PMGKY. Food transfers are vital as a significant share Price Shop to collect grains during the lockdown. of the consumption basket of poor households is The next iteration shall return to the same panel spent on grains. households to update estimates and dive deeper into bottlenecks. Majority of eligible households have received benefits due to them. By ‘eligible,’ we imply While majority of those enrolled in cash programs households that were enrolled into the programs received benefits due to them through the DBT used by PMGKY to provide emergency welfare channel, cash delivery remains challenging due support. For example, the government allocated to gaps in the ability of government agencies to additional pensions to the elderly who were already target and dynamically identify new beneficiaries Table 2: Eligible Households Receiving Benefits under PMGKY Share of All Eligible All-India Rural Urban Poor Not Male Headed Female Headed Households Who have Poor Household Households Received Benefits Food only 84.6% 89.1% 77.3% 93.1% 81.0% 84.4% 86.6% Cash only 80.2% 81.5% 76.7% 83% 78.2% 78.8% 91.3% Food and cash only 70.5% 70.2% 71.8% 76.3% 67.6% 68.8% 81.6% 8 | Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 Graph 2: Share of Households Enrolled in Social Protection Programs under PMGKY for Selected Groups 90.1% 88.0% 87.9% 87.2% 87.0% 81.3% 60.3% 58.8% 56.4% 50.9% 49.8% 34.0% 14.0% 7.9% 6.4% 6.4% 3.2% 2.8% Rural Urban Poor Not Poor Female Headed Male Headed Households Household Food Cash PF for payments. As Table 2 shows, 80% of households the chronically poor but vulnerable workers across who had members with PMJDY accounts or the wealth distribution. However, the rural bias enrolled in PMGKY-linked cash transfer programs continues, as only a third of urban households were did receive the benefits due to them. This suggests enrolled in any of the programs used to provide that the DBT digital payments platform is robust emergency relief through PMGKY, while 60% of at triggering cash into bank accounts. However, rural households reported being pre-enrolled in those without JDY accounts or those not enrolled cash transfer programs. in the programs used by the PMGKY package to Operationally, it is important to note that there provide support (such as PM-KSN or NSAP) were is significant overlap between households that ineligible for benefits as they were not identified are enrolled in the PDS system and hold PMJDY in any existing government database. Therefore, bank accounts. For example, based on the CPHS easing the ability of citizens through a universal data from the states of Tamil Nadu and Andhra targeting platform will be key moving forward. Pradesh, no household is only enrolled in the Graph 2 shows enrollment rates by key household’s cash transfer programs (see Annexure). Majority characteristics. Enrollment in the PDS program is of those receiving cash are also enrolled in the higher for rural areas, poor households and about PDS. This is unsurprising as many cash transfer the same for male and female head households. programs may rely on the PDS ration card to verify Provident fund accounts are predominantly found eligibility of applicants. Overall, 46% percent of in richer households living in urban areas. It is all Indian households are enrolled in both. A large also important to note that nearly 50% of non- fraction of this overlap is between JDY and PDS: poor households, were enrolled for cash transfer 35% of households were enrolled in both schemes. programs. This is largely due to the PMJDY transfers This suggests that linking the JDY accounts with into bank accounts, as opening a JDY account is the ration card database, adhering to strong data not exclusively targeted to the poor. These bank protection frameworks, can serve as an important accounts along with the PDS database can serve foundational layer for any efforts to scale-up as a core building block for creating a universal cash transfers or social registries for dynamic safety net –which serves and protects not only targeting. Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 | 9 Social Protection in The COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting strengths and structural challenges in India’s social protection India: Responding to the system. Benefits delivered through PMGKY have Pandemic and Future reached majority of Indian households during the Shocks first phase. However, portability and urban areas need sustained reform attention. Broadly, our Climate change and now COVID-19 have sounded survey results highlight the need for three major an alarm for all nations, including India. Anticipating transformations in the way the current social and addressing uncertainty and unexpected shocks protection system is designed to ensure economic is now the new normal in the management of nations resilience of the workforce. and their economies. Whether macro- economic like the financial crisis of 2008, or sectoral as in the case First, while India’s social protection architecture of the current health crisis, or natural disasters like responds to the needs of chronic poverty and rural floods and cyclones, such shocks are increasingly shocks, portable urban systems for scaling up cash, determining the trajectory of economic growth employment support and insurance for informal and the ability of nations to address poverty and workers, the ‘new-poor’ (those who have recently ensure shared prosperity. In this context, building a slipped into poverty due to unemployment losses modern, 21st century social protection system has from the pandemic) or the lower middle classes become essential for protecting citizens, particularly need bolstering. the poor and the vulnerable, and for ensuring a resilient and productive workforce. Even as India has Second, while the pipeline of cash delivery is managed historic gains in lowering poverty rates, strong through the DBT channel, identification and nearly half the households in India are vulnerable – targeting of new needs and beneficiaries remains between the poverty line and twice the poverty line. a challenge. Other than MGNREGS, the window The challenges faced by women headed households, for application and enrollment into major social adolescents – girls and boys, pensioners, and protection programs is open for a very limited time migrants, further highlights the urgency of addressing of the year across states. However, as the pandemic vulnerability. Social protection is therefore more than highlights, people’s lives are far more fluid than the just protecting the welfare of the poor; it is equally rigid application cycle of programs. India can learn about securing all of India’s work force. from other middle-income countries which have Table 4: Direct Benefit Transfers Reached 705 Million Individual Bank Accounts in 2019-2020 Program INR Funds Transferred Number of Beneficiaries (Figures in Millions) PAHAL 248219.1 262.8 MGNREGS 460460.8 119.1 NSAP 81144.8 34.6 PMAY-G 438834.5 13.8 Scholarships 70108.5 9.3 Others (356 cash programs) 1098523.2 265.9 All-India 2397291 705.5 (Source: DBT Mission 2020 database link: https://dbtbharat.gov.in/accessed on 26 Oct 2020) 10 | Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 Table 5: Direct Benefit Transfers Reached 802 Million Individual Bank Accounts in 2020-2021 Program INR Funds Transferred Number of Beneficiaries (Figures in Millions) PAHAL 226295.1 270.7 MGNREGS 672182.9 139.3 NSAP 72305.6 34.2 PMAY-G 482511.5 18.4 Scholarships 57462.4 7.8 Others (266 cash programs) 1181616.4 332.1 All-India 2692373.9 802.5 (Source: DBT Mission 2021 database link: https://dbtbharat.gov.in/accessed on 3rd June 2021) invested in social registries and delivery platforms. and siloed delivery systems. Furthermore, as These technology-enabled solutions can remedy Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 highlight, the beneficiary targeting challenges, only if they are underpinned and expenditure base of cash transfer schemes is with robust institutional frameworks and ‘rules of imbalanced. In 2020-2021, nearly 60% of all cash the game’ to protect citizen data and coordinate transfers beneficiaries belonged to 5 major schemes. across line agencies. India is well poised to build such In 2019-2020, 62.4% of all DBT-cash transfer a platform with data assets (such as the SEC, NFSA beneficiaries belonged to the same 5 schemes as database and JDY accounts) to rapidly ease access well. Moreover, in 2020-2021, nearly 60% of funds to programs for citizens and prioritize those in most transferred as cash benefits directly to individual need. The governance framework to guide such bank accounts were for these five schemes as well. reforms will be crucial. Social protection schemes are financed by the Finally, India provides social protection through center and implemented by state governments. a large and complex set of centrally sponsored In addition, state governments operate their own schemes. At present, there are nearly 3205 national schemes or top-up national programs to cater to local Direct Benefit Transfer schemes which channel contexts. Given the huge diversity in the economic benefits to citizens, with administrative duplication and risk profiles of India’s states, a decentralized 5 Over the years, the number of schemes classified as DBT have reduced to 320. On the published DBT portal, the data shows that 440 DBT schemes in 2018-2019 (71 in-kind transfer schemes and 365 delivering cash benefits) and 316 in 2020-2021 (45 in-kind transfer schemes and 271 delivering cash benefits) have reported all benefit delivery information. As a result, the number of “other” schemes in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 varies across the years. To be classified as a DBT program, the government has notified a framework whereby the concerned Ministry implementing the scheme adheres to requirements related to generation of a DBT Scheme Code (https://dbtbharat.gov.in/data/circulars/OM_dated_23-09-2016_on_Codification_of_Schemes.pdf) , use of PFMS, notifying the use of Aadhaar (https://dbtbharat.gov.in/data/circulars/Guidelines_for_notifying_use_of_Aadhaar_2_ Nov_2016.pdf and https://dbtbharat.gov.in/data/om/Aadhaar_Exception_Handling_OM_19122017.pdf), ensuring electronic modes of transferring benefits into bank accounts through a digitized list of beneficiaries, and reporting data on transactions to the DBT portal. Therefore, it is important to note that the scheme universe is much larger than represented by DBTs alone. However, the largest Indian safety nets are classified as DBT at present. Finally, the number of DBTs may also reduce due to discontinuation or consolidation of older schemes. For more information, please consult https://dbtbharat.gov.in/data/circulars/circular10.pdf and https://dbtbharat.gov.in/data/circulars/circular11.pdf Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 | 11 social protection approach will be called for. For scheme-based mechanisms. For example, there instance, the needs of the rising middle-class with is no nodal agency for social protection in India. access to private insurance markets in Delhi and Faced with the COVID-19 crisis, the Government of Maharashtra will differ markedly from the needs India’s PMGKY has helped build an implementation of poorer states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. platform whereby multiple schemes work together Further, coastal and ecologically precarious districts through leadership anchored by the Government of will need additional safety nets support to cope with India. The need for an authorized government body natural disasters and climate change. In states where to coordinate budgets, data and staff across myriad many poor and vulnerable households are still not central and state social protection programs is able to save enough to insure themselves against paramount as India navigates the future. crises or times of high prices, social assistance will Most importantly, global experience suggests remain a core intervention. The current ‘one-size- that no strategy can create an effective social fits-all’ model of national programs which offer protection architecture without a capable state. the same benefit levels and interventions across a Ensuring technology is leveraged effectively without variety of states needs reform. India can draw from triggering exclusion and privacy violations requires experience of other middle-income countries and robust regulation. As more flexibility is given to allow greater funds and flexibility to sub-national states, their capacity to plan, learn and implement governments to design localized approaches, while programs must also be strengthened, particularly at retaining a core set of national programs such as the sub-district level. Globally, countries have invested MGNREGS, PDS and social insurance schemes to heavily in local administration and social workers to operate pan-nationally. manage dynamic social registries and public dealing. Such future reforms require the creation of a Such community infrastructure is a powerful source social protection authority with central and state of job creation as well. Designing solutions to local government participation. Global experience problems will require a frontline administration which highlights that universal and adequate insurance has the time, talent, tools and authority to innovate cannot be achieved by hundreds of state and central and respond to citizen concerns. Lessons from the schemes operating in silos. Emerging economies last-mile infrastructure created in other countries have focussed on comprehensive coverage through can help India design its own technology and program consolidation and convergence. Countries rights enabled local state. As India designs its social have streamlined schemes and established protection response to the pandemic, the country integrated platforms which combine delivery of stands poised for a fundamental transformation from cash transfers to poor households with delivery a set of fragmented schemes to an integrated and of health, nutrition and education. Unlike health decentralized system. A broader social protection or education, there is no overarching institutional framework for a more urban, middle-income, mobile, or accountability framework for social protection natural disaster-prone, diverse and decentralized to help coordinate and evaluate these multiple India is urgently required. 12 | Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 Annexure: Detailed Coverage Estimates by State 2020 Table 1: Share of Households Enrolled in Programs within PMGKY Package by State State Food Only Cash Only Both None Andhra Pradesh 47% 0% 45% 7% Assam 22% 5% 47% 26% Bihar 31% 12% 36% 21% Chhattisgarh 33% 2% 58% 7% Delhi 18% 8% 20% 55% Goa 85% 0% 4% 11% Gujarat 53% 0% 40% 7% Haryana 16% 11% 36% 36% Himachal Pradesh 72% 0% 14% 13% Jharkhand 32% 2% 51% 16% Karnataka 28% 1% 52% 19% Kerala 53% 0% 39% 8% Madhya Pradesh 17% 4% 72% 6% Maharashtra 40% 1% 35% 24% Meghalaya 52% 2% 11% 35% Odisha 16% 3% 67% 13% Punjab 29% 2% 49% 20% Rajasthan 22% 0% 71% 6% Sikkim 45% 3% 18% 34% Tamil Nadu 53% 0% 37% 10% Telangana 34% 0% 50% 16% Tripura 41% 0% 46% 13% Uttar Pradesh 35% 4% 45% 15% Uttarakhand 12% 9% 44% 34% West Bengal 37% 1% 53% 9% All-India 35% 3% 47% 15% Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 | 13 Table 2: Share of all Households Reporting Receiving Benefits under the PMGKY Package by State State Food Only Cash Only Both At Least One Benefit (Food/Cash) Andhra Pradesh 53% 0% 42% 96% Assam 34% 5% 37% 76% Bihar 32% 12% 35% 78% Chhattisgarh 39% 2% 54% 95% Delhi 23% 6% 13% 42% Goa 75% 0% 4% 79% Gujarat 53% 3% 25% 81% Haryana 11% 18% 29% 58% Himachal Pradesh 72% 0% 14% 86% Jharkhand 32% 2% 50% 84% Karnataka 36% 2% 43% 80% Kerala 53% 2% 27% 81% Madhya Pradesh 17% 17% 21% 55% Maharashtra 59% 2% 18% 79% Meghalaya 63% 3% 12% 77% Odisha 19% 23% 18% 59% Punjab 8% 20% 16% 44% Rajasthan 16% 15% 48% 80% Sikkim 52% 2% 15% 69% Tamil Nadu 62% 0% 32% 95% Telangana 40% 1% 48% 88% Tripura 58% 0% 41% 100% Uttar Pradesh 37% 4% 42% 83% Uttarakhand 6% 12% 22% 40% West Bengal 53% 1% 41% 95% All-India 39.5% 6.1% 34.1% 79.7% 14 | Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 Table 3: Share of Eligible Households Receiving Benefits under PMGKY Package by State State Food Only Cash Only Both Andhra Pradesh 99.9% 52.9% 91.3% Assam 95.4% 89.2% 74.9% Bihar 96.0% 96.5% 96.8% Chhattisgarh 98.6% 64.2% 92.7% Delhi 92.4% 81.6% 67.3% Gujarat 79.8% 67.1% 60.1% Haryana 46.3% 96.9% 75.3% Himachal Pradesh 89.6% 8.3% 96.0% Jharkhand 96.9% 97.1% 98.9% Karnataka 86.9% 81.6% 81.6% Kerala 69.5% 6.3% 64.7% Madhya Pradesh 26.3% 33.7% 29.4% Maharashtra 82.7% 70.0% 49.7% Meghalaya 99.7% 100.0% 92.5% Odisha 29.8% 75.9% 26.6% Punjab 16.7% 78.1% 30.3% Rajasthan 38.4% 19.3% 67.4% Sikkim 89.3% 36.4% 74.8% Tamil Nadu 96.3% 0.0% 84.9% Telangana 89.8% 62.3% 91.5% Tripura 99.9% 0.0% 84.4% Uttar Pradesh 91.8% 84.6% 91.8% Uttarakhand 42.0% 35.8% 48.8% West Bengal 90.2% 56.7% 75.6% All-India 84.6% 80.2% 70.5% Intent to Implementation: Summary of Lessons from Tracking India’s Social Protection Response to COVID-19 | 15