Content
- Redraw Welfare Architecture: Place a UBI at the Centre
- Justice in food
Redraw Welfare Architecture: Place a UBI at the Centre
Why in News?
- Growing wealth inequality in India and precarious job structures (automation, gig economy, climate stress) have reignited debate on Universal Basic Income (UBI).
- The article argues for a restructuring of India’s welfare model around UBI as a cushion against future socio-economic shocks.
Relevance
- GS II – Governance, Welfare Schemes, Social Justice
- Relevance to welfare delivery, leakages, inclusion, and rights-based governance.
- Examines redesign of India’s welfare architecture to make it universal, efficient, and dignity-based.
- GS III – Economy (Inclusive Growth & Employment)
- Role of UBI in stabilising demand, cushioning automation shocks, and addressing inequality.
- GS IV – Ethics (Justice, Equity, and Human Dignity)
- Philosophical rationale: dignity, agency, and fairness as pillars of a modern welfare state.
Practice Question
- “In an age of automation and inequality, Universal Basic Income is not a populist giveaway but a structural necessity.”Critically examine this statement in light of India’s fragmented welfare system.(Answer in 250 words)
Background: The Concept of UBI
- Definition: A periodic, unconditional cash transfer to every citizen irrespective of income, employment, or social status.
- Core Principles:
- Universality – available to all citizens.
- Unconditionality – no strings attached (no eligibility filters).
- Agency & Dignity – recipients decide how to use the funds.
- Global Experiments:
- Finland (2017–19): Improved well-being, reduced stress, and maintained work motivation.
- Kenya: Enhanced nutrition, mental health, and school enrolment.
- Iran: Maintained labour participation while reducing poverty.
India’s Socio-Economic Context
- Wealth Inequality:
- Top 1% own 42% of wealth (World Inequality Database, 2025).
- Wealth Gini: 75, among the world’s highest.
- GDP vs Well-being Disconnect:
- India ranks 118/147 in World Happiness Report 2025 — below Nepal .
- High GDP (8.4% in 2023–24) not translating into equitable prosperity.
- Automation Threat:
- McKinsey Global Institute (2023): Up to 800 million jobs globally could be displaced by 2030.
- India’s semi-skilled and informal workers are most vulnerable.
- Labour & Mental Health Stress: Rising gig economy, job insecurity, and unacknowledged unpaid care work (mostly by women).
Current Welfare Architecture: Fragmented and Targeted
- Existing System: Over 1,000+ central and state welfare schemes (DBT, PDS, MGNREGA, PM-KISAN).
- Challenges:
- Leakages, duplication, exclusion errors.
- Complex eligibility filters and bureaucratic hurdles.
- Political populism — “vote-for-freebie” culture undermines systemic reform.
- Digital Platforms: Aadhaar + Jan Dhan + DBT infrastructure enable large-scale cash transfers, but digital divides persist (tribal, remote areas).
Why UBI Now?
- Economic Rationale:
- Boosts consumption demand in low-income groups.
- Stabilises economy during automation and job shocks.
- Simplifies subsidies, improving fiscal efficiency.
- Social Rationale:
- Provides economic floor and income security for all.
- Recognises unpaid care work (especially by women).
- Reduces dependence on ad hoc welfare politics.
- Moral-Philosophical Rationale:
- Transforms citizen–state relationship from charity to rights.
- Shifts democracy from “consumer-voter” to “citizen-holder of rights.”
Evidence from India
- SEWA Pilot (Madhya Pradesh, 2011–13):
- Conducted with UNICEF support.
- Results:
- Better nutrition and child health.
- Increased school attendance.
- Growth in small business income.
- No evidence of reduced work participation.
Economic Feasibility
- Estimated Fiscal Cost:
- Minimum UBI (₹7,620 per person/year = poverty line): ≈ 5% of GDP.
- Equivalent to major subsidies (food, fertilizer, fuel combined).
- Possible Financing Options:
- Rationalisation of overlapping subsidies.
- Wealth tax or inheritance tax on top 1%.
- Carbon tax or digital transaction levy.
- Diverting inefficient expenditure from multiple welfare heads.
- Phased Implementation:
- Begin with women, elderly, persons with disabilities, and informal workers.
- Expand progressively as fiscal space and tech systems improve.
Addressing Criticisms
| Criticism | Counter-argument |
| Fiscal burden too high | Start small, integrate with existing subsidies; 5% of GDP manageable with reprioritisation. |
| Encourages laziness | Evidence (SEWA, Finland) shows no decline in labour participation. |
| Inflation risk | Moderate UBI stimulates demand without supply shock; inflation arises from shortages, not income. |
| Rich also benefit | Can be clawed back through progressive taxation; universality reduces administrative cost. |
Global Context & Lessons
- Finland (2017–19): Improved mental health; 0.5% GDP cost.
- Kenya: 37% rise in local business income.
- Iran: Replaced energy subsidies with UBI-style payments; no inflation surge.
- Canada (Manitoba, 1970s): Hospitalisation fell 8.5%.
UBI vs Targeted Welfare
| Aspect | UBI | Targeted Welfare |
| Eligibility | Universal (citizenship-based) | Means-tested |
| Leakages | Minimal (DBT-enabled) | High |
| Administrative Cost | Low | High |
| Stigma | None | Often high |
| Political Manipulation | Low | High (vote-linked) |
| Inclusion | High | Exclusion-prone |
Way Forward
- Integrate UBI with DBT infrastructure and Jan Dhan–Aadhaar–Mobile (JAM) trinity.
- Combine with public goods provisioning (health, education) — not replacement.
- Conduct pilot projects at national scale for cost-benefit calibration.
- Pair UBI with skill-upgradation and green employment programmes.
Conclusion
- India’s current welfare model is fragmented, exclusion-prone, and reactive.
- A Universal Basic Income, if responsibly designed and fiscally balanced, can rebuild the social contract — restoring dignity, reducing inequality, and future-proofing citizens against economic shocks.
- The question is no longer affordability, but necessity — Can India afford not to guarantee a minimum income floor in an age of automation and inequality?
Justice in food
Why in News?
- The new EAT–Lancet Commission (2024) report highlights that global food systems drive 5 of the 6 breached planetary boundaries and contribute to nearly 30% of global GHG emissions.
- It calls for a “just transition” toward healthy, affordable, and sustainable diets — especially crucial for countries like India, facing high food insecurity and ecological stress.
Relevance
- GS II – Governance, Welfare, Health and Nutrition
- Food policy as a tool for social justice and equitable access to nutrition.
- GS III – Environment, Agriculture & Climate Change
- Food systems’ role in planetary boundary breaches and sustainable farming transitions.
Practice Question
- “Justice in food systems demands not only sustainable production but also equitable consumption.”
Discuss in the context of India’s cereal-heavy diet and environmental stress.
(Answer in 250 words)
The Core Idea
- Food systems encompass agriculture, processing, transportation, and consumption.
- They are central to climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and inequality.
- “Justice in food systems” implies ensuring:
- Healthy diets for all (nutrition security).
- Affordability and accessibility (economic justice).
- Sustainability of production (ecological justice).
- Fair livelihoods for farmers and workers (social justice).
Environmental Dimensions
- Food-related emissions: ~30% of global GHGs.
- Animal-based foods: Dominant share of emissions (methane, land use).
- Cereal crops: Major contributors to nitrogen, phosphorus, and water stress.
- Biogeochemical imbalance:
- Global nitrogen surplus >2× safe limit.
- Agricultural nutrient use surpasses planetary boundaries.
- Water crisis: Agriculture consumes ~70% of freshwater withdrawals globally.
The “Five of Six” Planetary Boundaries Affected by Food
| Boundary | Impact by Food Systems |
| Climate Change | 30% of global GHG emissions |
| Biodiversity Loss | Habitat conversion, pesticide use |
| Land-System Change | Expansion of agriculture |
| Biogeochemical Flows | Excess nitrogen & phosphorus runoff |
| Freshwater Use | Unsustainable irrigation practices |
The Commission’s Key Insights
- Even combined action (dietary change + emission cuts + productivity gains) will barely restore food systems’ safety by 2050.
- Assumes 127% global GDP growth by 2050 — likely overestimation given worsening climate shocks.
- Warns against efficiency traps: productivity gains often spur higher total output, eroding environmental savings.
India-Specific Concerns
- Dietary Structure:
- India’s diet remains cereal-heavy (especially rice and wheat).
- Meeting 2050 health benchmarks needs ↑ fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes.
- Challenges:
- Price inflation for perishable, nutrient-dense foods.
- Affordability crisis in import-dependent regions.
- Cultural and caste-linked dietary preferences.
- Public schemes (PDS, Midday Meals) reinforce cereal-based consumption.
- Environmental Stressors:
- Groundwater depletion (Punjab–Haryana belt).
- Soil degradation and nutrient imbalance.
- Fossil fuel dependence in cold chains and food processing.
Pathways for a Just Transition
Demand-Side Interventions
- Promote diverse diets through nutrition education and school meals.
- Fiscal incentives (GST cuts, subsidies) for minimally processed, plant-based foods.
- Redesign public procurement to include local, nutritious staples (millets, pulses, leafy greens).
- Introduce “healthy food standards” to curb harmful additives and ultra-processing.
Supply-Side Reforms
- Invest in soil restoration, water-efficient crops, and organic/natural farming.
- Remove implicit incentives for groundwater overuse (e.g., free power).
- Support climate-resilient agriculture and regional diversification.
- Develop sustainable cold chains powered by renewable energy.
Governance & Equity
- Break corporate concentration in agri-processing and retail.
- Enforce labour and environmental safeguards in supply chains.
- Strengthen collective bargaining rights for farmers and agri-workers.
- Ensure consumer representation in food regulation and policy.
Justice Dimension
| Type of Justice | Policy Focus |
| Environmental | Reduce emissions, restore nitrogen balance |
| Economic | Make healthy diets affordable |
| Social | Fair wages, worker protection |
| Cultural | Respect dietary diversity and regional food traditions |
| Intergenerational | Sustain ecosystems for future food security |
Policy Implications for India
- Shift from “calorie sufficiency” to “nutrition sufficiency.”
- Integrate EAT–Lancet diet targets with India’s National Nutrition Mission (Poshan 2.0) and FAO’s “One Health” framework.
- Align MSP and procurement toward millets, pulses, and oilseeds.
- Strengthen price stabilisation mechanisms for perishable foods.
- Promote urban food policies (local markets, rooftop gardens) to shorten supply chains.
Key Data Points
| Indicator / Source | Value / Finding |
| Food system GHG share | ~30% globally |
| Planetary boundaries breached by food | 5 of 6 |
| Nitrogen surplus | >2× safe limit |
| Global GDP assumption (by 2050) | +127% (EAT–Lancet 2024) |
| India’s dominant food share | Cereals (~60% calorie intake) |
| Water use in agriculture | ~70% of freshwater withdrawals |
Conclusion
- Food systems are at the heart of both the climate and inequality crises.
- Justice in these systems demands environmentally safe, nutritionally adequate, and economically fair diets.
- For India, this means:
- Diversifying diets beyond cereals.
- Reforming subsidies and procurement.
- Empowering farmers and consumers equally.
- The next phase of food policy must thus be nutrition- and justice-centric, not merely production-driven.
