Society & Welfare
Welfare and Development Programmes
Evaluating Welfare Schemes: Design, Delivery and Debates
Mains toolkit for CGPSC GS-V: targeting, cash vs kind, conditional transfers, DBT, social audit, freebies vs welfare, and how to evaluate any scheme.
Prerequisites
- Central Welfare Schemes: the schemes this page evaluates
- Chhattisgarh Welfare Schemes: the State examples used below
- Measuring Poverty and Inequality: who counts as poor, which decides who is targeted
The Hook: The Interview Board Question
Connect
A CGPSC interview board member leans forward: “Your State pays ₹1,000 a month to about 67 lakh women and tops up paddy to ₹3,100 a quintal. Are these welfare or freebies? As a Deputy Collector, how would you know if they work?”
A good answer does not pick a side. It uses a framework: who is targeted and how, whether help is in cash or kind, how it is delivered, what it achieves, and what it costs. This page gives you that framework, the vocabulary examiners reward, and the current debates (as of 2026).
Why it matters: GS-V questions rarely ask “list the features of scheme X”. They ask you to evaluate, compare or critically examine. The concepts here (inclusion and exclusion errors, conditionality, DBT, social audit, freebies) turn a list of facts into an analysis.
1. Rights vs Schemes
| Approach | Meaning | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Scheme-based (योजना आधारित) | Benefit depends on the budget and on government discretion; can be changed by an executive order | Most schemes: PMAY, Ujjwala, State cash transfers |
| Rights-based (अधिकार आधारित) | Benefit is a legal entitlement, with time limits, grievance redress and penalties | RTI Act 2005, NREGA 2005 (now VB-G RAM G Act 2025), Forest Rights Act 2006, RTE Act 2009, NFSA 2013, Chhattisgarh Food Security Act 2012 |
Analysis: rights give the beneficiary a claim on the State and survive changes of government; schemes are flexible but fragile. The 2025 replacement of MGNREGA shows that even a rights law can be redesigned: the guarantee survives (125 days), but normative allocation and 60:40 cost sharing change how strongly it binds in practice.
2. Targeted vs Universal
| Targeted (लक्षित) | Universal (सार्वभौमिक) | |
|---|---|---|
| Logic | Help only the needy; save money | Help everyone in a category; avoid wrongly leaving people out |
| Tool | BPL lists, SECC 2011, income or land criteria | Category rules (all children, all women 21+, all 70+) |
| Risk | Exclusion errors: deserving people left out | Inclusion errors: benefits reach the better-off; higher cost |
| Example | PMAY-G (SECC + Gram Sabha verification) | Mid-day meals, PM-JAY for all 70+, Chhattisgarh’s near-universal PDS |
- Inclusion error (Type II): a non-poor household gets the benefit.
- Exclusion error (Type I): a poor household is left out. For the poorest, an exclusion error is far more harmful than an inclusion error is costly.
- Chhattisgarh lesson: the State widened the PDS beyond the official BPL list in the 2000s. Near-universal coverage cut exclusion errors and created a broad middle-class constituency that defends the system. See Public Distribution System.
3. Cash vs Kind
| Cash transfers | In-kind transfers |
|---|---|
| Choice and dignity for the household | Ensures the specific good (grain, meal, medicine) is consumed |
| Lower administrative cost; DBT cuts leakage | Protects against inflation (grain does not lose value) |
| Supports local markets | Useful where markets are thin (remote forest villages) |
| Risk: money may not go to nutrition; depends on banking access | Risk: leakage in storage and transport; limited choice |
| Examples: PM-KISAN, Mahtari Vandan, Krishak Unnati | Examples: PDS rice, PM POSHAN meals, anganwadi take-home ration |
The Economic Survey 2016–17 devoted a chapter to a Universal Basic Income (UBI): an unconditional cash payment to all, replacing many schemes. It was discussed, not adopted. State cash schemes for women are sometimes described as “partial” or “categorical” basic incomes.
Balanced view: cash works where banks, markets and prices are stable; kind works where they are not. Chhattisgarh uses both: cash to women and farmers, and free rice through the PDS.
4. Conditional vs Unconditional
| Type | Meaning | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) | Paid only if the household does something (institutional delivery, antenatal check-up, vaccination, school attendance) | Janani Suraksha Yojana (institutional delivery), PMMVY (pregnancy registration, check-up, child’s vaccination) |
| Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) | Paid by eligibility alone | PM-KISAN, Mahtari Vandan, landless labourers’ ₹10,000 |
For conditions: they nudge behaviour with long-run benefits (safe delivery, immunisation). Against: they need working services (a hospital to deliver in) and paperwork, and can punish the poorest for the State’s own service gaps.
5. Delivery: DBT, Aadhaar and Its Limits
| Gains | Problems |
|---|---|
| Fewer ghost and duplicate beneficiaries | Authentication failures (worn fingerprints of manual labourers and the elderly, weak connectivity in Bastar) |
| Faster, traceable payments | Payment failures: wrong account, inactive account, Aadhaar not seeded |
| Real-time dashboards | Last-mile cash-out: banking correspondents far from forest hamlets |
| Lower administrative cost | “Digital exclusion” of people who cannot manage apps and portals |
Remedies to cite: offline and alternative authentication, grievance windows at the panchayat, banking correspondents, and the right to be heard before a name is deleted.
6. Accountability: Social Audit, Grievance and Evaluation
| Tool | What it does |
|---|---|
| Social audit (सामाजिक अंकेक्षण) | The Gram Sabha checks records, muster rolls and works in public; made statutory under Section 17 of MGNREGA; continues for rural works |
| Citizen charters and public lists | Chhattisgarh’s PDS put ration card lists and stock data in public view, with SMS alerts |
| RTI Act, 2005 | Citizens can demand scheme records |
| Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office (DMEO) | Attached office of NITI Aayog (set up in 2015) that evaluates central schemes |
| Output-Outcome Monitoring Framework | Since the 2017–18 Union Budget, ministries report outputs and outcomes, not just spending |
| Independent surveys | NFHS, HCES, PLFS: the external check on what schemes claim |
Output vs outcome: “houses built” or “rupees transferred” are outputs; “children not stunted”, “women in paid work”, “families out of poverty” are outcomes. Examiners reward answers that make this distinction.
7. Fiscal Federalism and Sustainability
- Who pays: core CSS at 60:40; VB-G RAM G at 60:40 from 1 July 2026 (MGNREGA’s unskilled wages were fully central). States carry their own schemes as well.
- Committed spending: salaries, pensions, interest and recurring transfers leave less room for capital expenditure (irrigation, roads, schools). See Fiscal Deficit and FRBM.
- Chhattisgarh example: Mahtari Vandan alone costs roughly ₹7,500 crore a year at the August 2026 rate (about ₹631 crore a month), on top of above-MSP paddy procurement and State shares of central schemes. Pending hospital claims of over ₹800 crore under the State health assurance scheme (reported July 2025) show what happens when commitments run ahead of cash flow.
8. The “Freebies vs Welfare” Debate (as of 2026)
| Milestone | Detail |
|---|---|
| S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) | The Supreme Court held that poll promises of free goods are not a “corrupt practice” under the Representation of the People Act, and asked the Election Commission to frame guidelines in the model code |
| Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay PIL (January 2022) | Sought action against parties promising “irrational freebies” from public funds; notices issued to the Centre and the Election Commission in 2022; the matter was referred to a larger (three-judge) bench later in 2022 |
| August 2026 | The petitioner sought an early hearing before a bench led by CJI Surya Kant; the Court has stressed that large-scale distribution of State largesse to individuals is different from investing in public welfare schemes |
How to write about it:
| Welfare (defensible) | “Freebie” concerns |
|---|---|
| Merit goods with long-run returns: food, nutrition, health, education, housing | Untargeted consumer goods or subsidies with no development purpose |
| Protects the vulnerable; part of Directive Principles | Announced near elections without a funding plan |
| Builds human capital (a healthy, educated workforce) | Crowds out capital spending; adds to debt |
| Example: PDS, anganwadi nutrition, PM-JAY | Example: blanket power or water waivers for all, regardless of need |
Balanced line: the issue is not “free vs paid” but purpose, targeting, transparency and fiscal backing. A scheme with a clear goal, a funding source and an outcome evaluation is welfare; a promise without these is a fiscal risk.
A Ready Framework: “TIDES” for Evaluating Any Scheme
| Letter | Question | Example (Mahtari Vandan) |
|---|---|---|
| Targeting | Who is in, who is out? Inclusion and exclusion errors? | Married women 21+; unmarried women excluded |
| Instrument | Cash or kind? Conditional or not? | Unconditional cash |
| Delivery | How does it reach people? Leakages, failures? | DBT; regular monthly instalments |
| Effect (outcomes) | What changed beyond outputs? Evidence? | No independent evaluation as of 2026 |
| Sustainability | Cost, fiscal space, political continuity? | About ₹7,500 crore a year |
Memory Tricks
TIDES: every evaluation answer
Targeting, Instrument, Delivery, Effect, Sustainability. Run any scheme through these five and you have a balanced 250-word body.
Errors: 'Exclusion Excludes the poor'
Exclusion error = a poor household is left out (worse for welfare). Inclusion error = a non-poor household gets in (costs money).
Don’t Confuse
| This | vs | That |
|---|---|---|
| Output: houses built, money transferred | vs | Outcome: lower stunting, higher incomes |
| Exclusion error: needy left out | vs | Inclusion error: non-needy included |
| CCT: JSY, PMMVY | vs | UCT: PM-KISAN, Mahtari Vandan |
| Rights-based: NFSA, RTE, rural work guarantee | vs | Scheme-based: PMAY, Ujjwala, State cash schemes |
| DMEO: NITI Aayog’s evaluation office | vs | CAG: constitutional auditor of government accounts |
| Subramaniam Balaji (2013): freebies not a corrupt practice | vs | Upadhyay PIL (2022): pending, larger bench |
Common Mistakes
Trap 1: calling every transfer a freebie
Food security, nutrition and health spending are merit goods backed by the Directive Principles. Labelling them “freebies” makes an answer one-sided. Distinguish purpose and targeting.
Trap 2: judging by money spent
“₹18,806 crore transferred” is an output. An evaluation needs outcomes (nutrition, work, income) measured by independent surveys.
Trap 3: assuming DBT solves leakage completely
DBT removed ghost beneficiaries but created new exclusion through authentication and payment failures. Mention both.
Practice
These are original practice questions written in CGPSC style. They are not previous-year questions.
Level 1: Foundation
- When a deserving poor household is left out of a scheme, it is called an ________ error.
- Social audit of rural works by the Gram Sabha was made statutory under Section ________ of MGNREGA.
- NITI Aayog’s office for evaluating central schemes is the ________.
Answers
- Exclusion
- 17
- Development Monitoring and Evaluation Office (DMEO)
Level 2: Prelims MCQs
Q1. Consider the following statements:
- Janani Suraksha Yojana is an example of a conditional cash transfer.
- PM-KISAN is an example of a conditional cash transfer linked to crop insurance.
- An inclusion error means a non-eligible household receives the benefit.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 3 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
(b) 1 and 3 only. JSY pays for institutional delivery, so it is conditional. PM-KISAN is an unconditional income transfer to landholding farmer families; it has no crop insurance condition.
Q2. In S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013), the Supreme Court held that:
- (a) all election freebies are unconstitutional
- (b) promises of free goods in manifestos are not a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act
- (c) political parties promising freebies must be deregistered
- (d) the Finance Commission must approve State welfare schemes
Answer and explanation
(b). The Court held such promises are not a corrupt practice under the RP Act, while asking the Election Commission to frame guidelines. The later Upadhyay PIL (2022) reopened the debate and was referred to a larger bench.
Q3. Which of the following is an outcome indicator rather than an output indicator for a nutrition programme?
- (a) Number of anganwadi centres opened
- (b) Tonnes of take-home ration distributed
- (c) Percentage of children under 5 who are stunted
- (d) Amount of funds released to States
Answer and explanation
(c). Stunting measures the change in children’s health, which is the purpose of the programme. Centres, rations and funds are outputs or inputs.
Q4. Match List-I (Concept) with List-II (Example):
| List-I | List-II |
|---|---|
| A. Rights-based entitlement | 1. Mahtari Vandan Yojana |
| B. Unconditional cash transfer | 2. National Food Security Act, 2013 |
| C. In-kind transfer | 3. Social audit by the Gram Sabha |
| D. Accountability tool | 4. PM POSHAN school meals |
- (a) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3
- (b) A-1, B-2, C-4, D-3
- (c) A-2, B-4, C-1, D-3
- (d) A-2, B-1, C-3, D-4
Answer and explanation
(a) A-2, B-1, C-4, D-3. NFSA makes food a legal right; Mahtari Vandan pays cash without conditions; school meals are in-kind; social audit is an accountability mechanism.
Level 3: Mains Answer Writing
Q1. Distinguish between “freebies” and “welfare”. How should a State like Chhattisgarh decide which schemes to continue? (150–200 words)
Model answer outline
- Intro: The Supreme Court (2026) has itself distinguished large-scale distribution of largesse from investment in public welfare.
- Welfare: merit goods with long-run returns (food, nutrition, health, education); backed by DPSP (Art 38, 39, 47); targeted at the vulnerable.
- Freebies: untargeted, consumption-only promises, often near elections, without funding or evaluation.
- Decision criteria (TIDES): clear targeting; right instrument; reliable delivery; measurable outcomes; fiscal sustainability.
- Chhattisgarh application: PDS and anganwadi nutrition are clear welfare; Mahtari Vandan and Krishak Unnati need outcome evaluation (women’s nutrition and work; crop diversity) and fiscal planning (about ₹631 crore a month for Mahtari Vandan in August 2026).
- Conclusion: keep schemes that pass on evidence, redesign those that do not, and protect capital spending.
Q2. “Direct Benefit Transfer has improved efficiency but created new forms of exclusion.” Critically examine. (250 words)
Model answer outline
- Intro: DBT (from 1 January 2013), running on JAM, now carries most central and State transfers.
- Efficiency gains: removal of ghost and duplicate beneficiaries; faster, traceable payments; reduced intermediaries; dashboards for monitoring.
- New exclusion: biometric authentication failures; Aadhaar seeding and bank account errors; connectivity gaps in remote tribal areas; distant cash-out points; elderly and disabled beneficiaries struggle with portals.
- Chhattisgarh angle: PDS ePoS in Bastar’s forest villages; Mahtari Vandan paid by DBT; banking correspondents and Bihan SHGs as last-mile helpers.
- Remedies: alternative authentication, grievance redress at panchayat level, no deletion without hearing, social audit, independent surveys.
- Conclusion: DBT is a tool, not an end; its success is measured by whether every eligible person actually receives the benefit.
Quick Revision Table
| Concept | Key point |
|---|---|
| Rights-based laws | RTI 2005, NREGA 2005 (now VB-G RAM G 2025), FRA 2006, RTE 2009, CG FSA 2012, NFSA 2013 |
| Exclusion vs inclusion error | Poor left out vs non-poor included |
| Cash vs kind | Choice and low cost vs assured consumption and inflation-proofing |
| UBI | Economic Survey 2016–17 chapter; not adopted |
| CCT vs UCT | JSY, PMMVY vs PM-KISAN, Mahtari Vandan |
| Social audit | Gram Sabha; Section 17 of MGNREGA |
| DMEO | NITI Aayog, 2015 |
| Output-Outcome Framework | From Union Budget 2017–18 |
| Freebies cases | Subramaniam Balaji (2013); Upadhyay PIL (2022, larger bench); Aug 2026 hearing request before CJI Surya Kant |
| TIDES | Targeting, Instrument, Delivery, Effect, Sustainability |
Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
- Evaluate schemes on targeting, instrument, delivery, effect and sustainability (TIDES), not on money spent.
- Exclusion errors hurt the poor more than inclusion errors cost the State; Chhattisgarh’s near-universal PDS shows the value of broad coverage.
- Cash vs kind and conditional vs unconditional are context choices, not ideologies.
- DBT cut leakage but created authentication and payment exclusion.
- The freebies debate turns on purpose, targeting, transparency and fiscal backing; the Supreme Court has distinguished largesse from welfare.
What’s Next
- Welfare and Development Programmes: Quick Revision: the whole chapter on one page
- Inclusive Growth and Social Security: the economic case for welfare
- Social Legislation: RTI and other rights-based laws
- Public Administration: accountability and development administration
Advertisement