Publication: Intent to Implementation: Tracking India's Social Protection Response to COVID-19
Loading...
Published
2021-06
ISSN
Date
2021-06-14
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
The article takes stock of the social protection measures implemented through the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) to respond to the livelihoods impact of COVID-19 in India. The paper reports the share of households that received food, cash transfers and both forms of assistance under the PMGKY program at the national and state level. While a few surveys have reported coverage and benefit receipt information related to PMGKY, the current analysis draws on one of India’s largest panel survey of households from CMIE to better quantify the coverage and targeting parameters. Results find that nearly 80 percent of all households received at least one social protection benefit from government programs. Approximately 40 percent of all poor households reported receiving both food and cash assistance. While subsequent versions of the paper shall attempt to unpack quantum of assistance, the first round of results on receipt of any transfers suggest that relief measures have been pro-poor and broad-based in outreach. However, there are state level variations in benefit delivery. Urban areas have lagged in coverage and cash transfers reached fewer shares of households relative to food distribution through the Public Distribution System (PDS). Furthermore, analysis highlights the need to bolster benefit levels for any future relief measures. Drawing on lessons from PMGKY implementation, the article concludes with suggestions on designing a decentralized and adaptive social protection system in India to protect the poor and vulnerable against impacts from the second wave of the pandemic and any future crises.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“Bhattacharya, Shrayana; Sinha Roy, Sutirtha. 2021. Intent to Implementation: Tracking India's Social Protection Response to COVID-19. Social Protection and Jobs Discussion Paper;No. 2107. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/35746 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Digital Object Identifier
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Challenges and Potentialities for Implementing Social Protection Responses to Emergency Through Decentralized Administration(World Bank, Brasilia, 2022-01)With the advent of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), Brazil has come out with one of the fastest and most generous social protection responses globally. Auxilio Emergencial (AE’s) operation is in contrast to that of regular social protection programs due to its highly centralized setup with limited formal involvement of subnational governments. Therefore, this analysis aims at understanding some core reasons why this happened and what were the main implications of this centralized operation to the program. The text also describes measures that were enacted to mitigate challenges due to the exclusion of subnational governments from the operation of AE and discusses the extent to which these can integrate traditional decentralization mechanisms of regular programs in the future and further improve the sectoral case management capacity at large. This paper is structured in seven chapters. Chapter one is introduction, chapter two presents a conceptual framework describing main forms of decentralization and discussing their adequacy to different contexts and traditional functions of the social protection sector. Chapter three presents an overview of AE highlighting its centralized setup and already discussing some main reasons why traditional decentralization mechanisms, such as the unified social assistance system (SUAS), were not formal members of the program. Chapter four discusses legacies of SUAS historical support to social protection in Brazil and how these have contributed to AE even if the system was not formally involved in the program. Chapter five describes some main challenges faced by AE and that can arguably have been mitigated had SUAS and or other subnational governments been part of its formal operation. Chapter six considers how SUAS and decentralized forms of social protection were nevertheless relevant as complementary measures to that provided by AE. Finally, chapter seven concludes by summarizing some core lessons learned for engaging decentralized mechanisms in emergency responses in the future.Publication Social Protection and Jobs Responses to COVID-19(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-04-17)Some key finds from this "living paper" include : As of April 23, 2020, a total of 151 countries (18 more since last week) have planned, introduced or adapted 684 social protection measures in response to COVID-19 (Coronavirus). This is a ten-fold increase in measures since the first edition of this living paper (March 20). New countries include Angola, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Belarus, Bermuda, Brunei, Chad, Grenada, Libya, Montserrat, Nigeria, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, St Maarten, and UAE. Social assistance transfers are the most widely used class of interventions (60 percent of global responses, or 412 measures). These are complemented by significant action in social insurance and labor market-related measures (supply-side measures). Among safety nets, cash transfer programs remain the most widely used safety net intervention by governments (table 1 and figure 2). Overall, cash transfers include 222 COVID-related measures representing one-third (32.4 percent) of total COVID-related social protection programs. Cash transfers include a mix of both new and pre-existing programs of various duration and generosity. About half (47 percent) of cash transfers are new programs in 78 countries (reaching 512.6 million people), while one-fifth (22 percent) of measures are one-off payments. The average duration of transfers is 2.9 months. The size of transfers is relatively generous, or one-fifth (22 percent) of monthly GDP per capita in respective countries. On average, this is an increase of 86.6 percent compared to average pre-COVID transfer levels (where data is available for a subset of countries).Publication Where is the Money Coming From? Ten Stylized Facts on Financing Social Protection Responses to COVID-19(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-11)The unprecedented and ongoing scale-up of social protection responses to the COVID-19 pandemic dwarf the response to the Great Recession. But how are countries financing such scale-up efforts? This note lays out ten stylized findings from a rapid review of social protection financing sources in thirty-one countries, including in terms of composition between external and domestic resources, and specific modalities within each.Publication Going Viral(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2020-09-28)The economic impact of COVID-19 is unprecedented in size and scope. It has quickly evolved from a health emergency into an employment crisis. It also has far-reaching implications for workers beyond the immediate employment effects, as it most likely has accelerated the transformation process of jobs that had already started in the region and the world. This book focuses on three important pre-pandemic trends observed in the region—namely, premature deindustrialization, servicification of the economy, and task automation—that were significantly changing the labor market landscape in the region and that have been accelerated by the crisis. While there is still uncertainty about the economic impacts of Covid-19, policymakers need to start planning for a rapidly evolving future that will come sooner than expected. A strong focus on productivity, technology development and adoption, and training in relevant skills will be key to adapting and taking advantage of the new opportunities in the post-pandemic world. Importantly, the accelerated transformation of jobs calls for a rethinking of labor regulations and social protection policies geared towards wage earners employed in the formal sector of the economy. The three trends identified in Going Viral, the effects of the pandemic itself, and the growing reliance on electronic platforms raise doubts that wage employment will increase substantially in the coming years. At the same time, earnings and transactions processed through electronic platforms are more visible to the authorities, bringing an opportunity to increase tax revenue and social security contributions. The flexible regulation of the emerging forms of work in a way that encourages employment, supports formalization, and expands the coverage of social protection to larger segments of the population will be of utmost importance for policymakers preparing for a new and changed world.Publication Social Protection Response to the COVID-19 Crisis in the Dominican Republic(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2021-01)The Government of the Dominican Republic (DR) adopted a series of economic and social measures to protect households and businesses and prevent employment losses as a response to the Coronavirus disease SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) health and economic crisis. Social protection policies and programs have been used globally as effective mechanisms to respond to the economic crisis due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy note aims to document and analyze the design and implementation of the three main cash-transfer programs that the government used to protect households and workers affected by the COVID-19 crisis. The programs that are part of the scope of the note are: (1) stay at home (quédate en casa, QEC), (2) the employee solidarity assistance fund (fondo de asistencia solidaria del empleado, FASE), and (3) the independent worker assistance program (programa de asistencia al trabajador independiente, PA’ TI). The analysis of these programs is based on a desk review of administrative and legal documents, media information, program reports, and operational rules. The policy note is organized as follows: first, it provides an overview of the impact of COVID-19 on the economy and identifies the potentially affected population. Second, it provides a description of the design and implementation of the three social protection programs and their expenditures. Finally, it discusses lessons learned, including challenges and opportunities to improve social protection policies, based on an adaptative social protection framework.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.Publication Breaking the Conflict Trap : Civil War and Development Policy(Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press, 2003)Most wars are now civil wars. Even though international wars attract enormous global attention, they have become infrequent and brief. Civil wars usually attract less attention, but they have become increasingly common and typically go on for years. This report argues that civil war is now an important issue for development. War retards development, but conversely, development retards war. This double causation gives rise to virtuous and vicious circles. Where development succeeds, countries become progressively safer from violent conflict, making subsequent development easier. Where development fails, countries are at high risk of becoming caught in a conflict trap in which war wrecks the economy and increases the risk of further war. The global incidence of civil war is high because the international community has done little to avert it. Inertia is rooted in two beliefs: that we can safely 'let them fight it out among themselves' and that 'nothing can be done' because civil war is driven by ancestral ethnic and religious hatreds. The purpose of this report is to challenge these beliefs.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.