Guarantee is precarity, welfare is self-care 

Freebies, in the context of government policies and programs, refer to goods or services provided to citizens at little to no cost. These offerings are often aimed at addressing social needs, reducing inequality, or garnering political support. Freebies can take various forms, including subsidies, cash transfers, vouchers, or direct provision of goods and services.

Governments may provide freebies for several reasons:

•  Freebies are often implemented to support vulnerable populations, such as low-income families, the elderly, or persons with disabilities. By providing essential goods or services for free or at subsidized rates, governments aim to improve the well-being and quality of life of these groups.
• Freebies can serve as a means of poverty alleviation by reducing the financial burden on disadvantaged individuals and families. For example, subsidized food distribution programs or free healthcare services can help ensure access to basic necessities for those in need.
• Offering freebies can also be a strategic move by governments to gain popularity and secure electoral support. By providing tangible benefits to citizens, especially during election cycles, governments aim to enhance their public image and increase voter loyalty.

Challenges and criticisms

• Funding freebies can strain government budgets, especially if not adequately planned for or if resources are misallocated. This can lead to fiscal deficits and financial instability in the long run.
• Continuous reliance on freebies may foster a culture of dependency among citizens, discouraging self-sufficiency and economic empowerment. Over-reliance on government assistance can hinder individual initiative and long-term development.
• In some cases, the provision of freebies may distort market dynamics by artificially lowering prices or creating unfair competition with private sector providers. This can have negative implications for market efficiency and private investment.
• Freebies may not always reach the intended beneficiaries due to challenges in targeting and distribution. Inefficient delivery mechanisms or corruption can result in resources being misallocated or diverted away from those in genuine need.
• There are ethical concerns associated with the provision of freebies, particularly regarding the fairness of resource allocation and the potential for exploitation of taxpayer funds for political gain.

3. Contrasting Welfare Models

UPA Decade Schemes (2004-2014)

During the period of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) from 2004 to 2014, five major programs are considered as "UPA schemes":

1. National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) 2005
2. National Food Security Act (NFSA) 2013, encompassing:
   • Public Distribution System (PDS)
   • Mid-Day Meals (MDM)
   • Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS)
   • Maternity entitlements (implemented through Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY), operationalized in 2017)

For the Public Distribution System (PDS), the food subsidy is utilized as an approximation. Although dividing the food subsidy into consumer, producer, and administrative subsidies is complex, halving the food subsidy is deemed sufficient for consumer subsidy estimation.

NDA Period Schemes (2014-2024)

Throughout the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) tenure from 2014 to 2024, the Bharatiya Janata Party initiated various schemes:

1. Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (SBA) from 2014
2. Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U) from 2015
3. Pradhan Mantri Awas (rural) from the subsequent year, along with Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana
4. Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-Kisan) and Ayushman Bharat launched in 2018
5. Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) in 2019

The total budget for Ayushman Bharat from 2019-24 amounted to ₹32,000 crore, half the annual expenditure on PM-Awas, averaged over the same period. However, it's excluded from the comparison as it doesn't significantly alter the results.

For Ujjwala Yojana, the LPG subsidy is utilized, although only a portion is allocated to the scheme. The analysis includes five major "NDA schemes": SBA, PM-Awas, LPG subsidy, PM-Kisan, and JJM.

Evaluation of Welfare Models

• Some have juxtaposed the UPA and NDA welfare approaches, highlighting a shift towards the provision of private goods by the government, termed as "new welfarism."
• However, many of these schemes had counterparts during the UPA era, albeit with different names and lower budgets.
• Following 2014, UPA schemes continue under new appellations, maintaining their essential objectives.
• The NDA schemes adopt a saturation strategy, promoting an element of self-targeting. Eligibility is restricted to those lacking basic amenities like toilets, pucca rooms, or LPG connections, allowing for sequential coverage.
• Conversely, UPA benefits are distributed to entitled individuals based on predetermined criteria, such as yearly employment guarantees, monthly ration provisions, or daily meals in schools and anganwadis.
• Nonetheless, a degree of self-targeting is observed, with participation influenced by socio-economic factors.

Union Budget Allocation Analysis

The expenditure in the Union Budget is categorized into "NDA schemes," "UPA schemes," and the combined total. Despite robust GDP growth during this period, welfare expenditure remains low and stagnant, exceeding 3% of GDP only once, notably during one of the two COVID-19 years. The UPA years witnessed a notable increase in welfare spending. However, after the Fourteenth Finance Commission devolved more funds to the States, reducing the Centre's share from 90% to 60% for certain schemes, the trend persisted.

Legal Entitlements vs. Government Discretion

In contrast to the legal entitlement status of benefits, none of the government schemes hold similar legal backing. Consequently, defunding old schemes entirely poses challenges due to their legal mandates. The Present government schemes, being subject to government discretion, resemble "freebies" more closely. The budgetary neglect experienced by old schemes, particularly those catering to children, is evident. Their share of GDP declined gradually from approximately 1.5% in 2014 to 1% in 2018-19 before pandemic-induced exigencies prompted an increase.

Impact of Funding Allocation

While funding to Present Government schemes increased marginally over the past decade, it failed to compensate for the decline in spending on old schemes. Despite steady growth, it remained below 1% of GDP, reflecting modest achievements. Notably, according to the National Family Health Survey, indicators such as LPG usage and reduction in open defecation demonstrated modest improvements.

Reliance on UPA Initiatives during COVID-19

During the COVID-19 crisis, the administration resorted to initiatives, including reviving NREGA. The complex relationship between the schemes is evident in the case of the PDS/PMGKAY, highlighting policy continuities and adaptations.

PDS/PMGKAY Dynamics

The NFSA 2013 mandated PDS coverage for 800 million individuals, providing essential commodities at subsidized rates. Amidst the pandemic, entitlements were temporarily doubled and later adjusted to provide relief. Despite factual intricacies, the current expanded PDS coverage is now synonymous, reflecting policy shifts and adaptations over time. However, challenges such as census data discrepancies have affected coverage estimations, indicating the need for accurate demographic data for effective policy implementation.

5. State-Led Welfare Initiatives

Several State governments, particularly those governed by regional parties, have taken proactive measures to address social welfare needs.

Enhanced School Meal Programs

While the Union government has made minimal increases in per-child cooking costs for school meals, States like Bihar, Jharkhand, and Odisha have taken innovative steps. These States provide eggs several times a week in school meals and Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), even amidst financial constraints.

Augmented Social Security Pensions

Despite stagnation in the central contribution to social security pensions since 2006, many States have bolstered their efforts. For instance, Odisha's Madhu Babu Pension Yojana supports a significant proportion of pensioners in the state. Moreover, States like Odisha and Tamil Nadu offer higher maternity entitlements to pregnant women compared to the central government's Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY).

Reputation Building vs. Substantive Support

The government has garnered a reputation as a significant welfare spender primarily through the rebranding of existing programs, such as the Mid-Day Meal (MDM) scheme renamed as POSHAN, and the Public Distribution System (PDS) now known as PMGKAY. However, these initiatives have been underfunded without adequate compensatory social assistance. In a paradoxical scenario, terms like "guarantee" imply precarity, and "welfare" often translates to self-care, reflecting the complex realities of contemporary welfare policies.