India's Welfare State: Too much, too soon, with too little?

The promise of too much, too soon, with too little is tempting for politicians for mobilising votes, particularly of the poor.

- ASHOK KUMAR LAHIRI

This proclivity is also fuelled by an altered view about a decent standard of living triggered by a sea change in the location of the poor in recent decades.

Most of the poor—nine out of 10 in 1990—used to live in poor or low-income countries. Now, three-quarters live in middle-income countries.

The indisputable moral imperative of helping the poor becomes compelling in middle-income countries, and gets reinforced by electoral compulsions in democracies. Recent elections in Indian states have witnessed political parties promising a plethora of schemes, such as enhanced cash transfers to women, free gas cylinders, free electricity to farmers, farm loan waiver, free food packets and smartphones, and scooters to women.

Are some of these too much, too soon, with too little? Are the welfare state and its agents, the political parties, making such excessive promises, particularly in pre-election years, with undesirable consequences?

The problems with delivering impractical promises are well-known to us from our experience with free medical treatment at government hospitals. Yes, it is free, but quite often not available. Hospitals are overcrowded, admission for inhouse treatment involves a long waiting time, and medicines and ambulances which are supposed to be available free have to be purchased from outside. Is the promise of free tertiary medical care to all ‘too much’ ‘too soon’?

Most people would agree that the poor should get free food ration and medical treatment, or that the poor farmer should get free or subsidised electricity for irrigation. Much of the problem of ‘too much’ would have disappeared if the poor could be accurately targeted.