Key facts
- Chief Economic Adviser V. Anantha Nageswaran questioned the affordability and effectiveness of government 'freebies'.
- He suggested that welfare spending should be compared against alternative expenditures that might offer greater benefit.
- Nageswaran advocated for a sensible, design-driven approach to welfare, potentially with conditions attached.
- He cited the Tamil Nadu midday meal scheme as a successful example of a welfare program.
- Nageswaran stated that welfare is an obligation of a democratic government but must be affordable.
Chief Economic Adviser V. Anantha Nageswaran has stated that while a welfare society is an obligation of a democratic government, the key considerations are always affordability and whether the expenditure could yield greater benefits if allocated differently. He urged a sensible, rather than emotional, approach to evaluating welfare programs, questioning their true impact and exploring alternative methods of support.
Nageswaran noted that even developed nations, such as G7 countries, face challenges in managing promises related to pensions, unemployment insurance, and healthcare. He suggested that if welfare initiatives are designed effectively and serve as a 'contract between the government and the society,' they can be beneficial. However, he emphasized the need to ask if these programs genuinely help people or if alternative expenditures could be more effective.
He proposed that benefits could be linked to specific parameters that enhance the quality of the population, such as improvements in children's education or the acquisition of vocational skills. Nageswaran also referenced the midday meal scheme in Tamil Nadu as a successful example of a welfare program that, though initially introduced without explicit design, yielded significant benefits in school attendance and child nutrition.