Why in news?

In the 2024-25 Budget, the Finance Minister emphasized women-led development, highlighting a strong commitment to women's empowerment.

This dedication is evident in the Gender Budget Statement (GBS), which reported that the Gender Budget has reached 1% of GDP estimates for the first time. The overall budget allocations for pro-women programs now exceed ₹3 lakh crore, reflecting a significant investment in initiatives aimed at advancing gender equality.

What’s in today’s article?

• Gender Budget in India
• Gender Budget of 2024-25

Gender Budget in India

• About
  • Gender budgeting is a policy strategy that integrates a gender perspective into the budgetary process.
  • It aims to assess how government spending and resource allocation impact men and women differently.
  • The goal is to promote gender equality by ensuring that public resources are distributed in a way that benefits all genders equitably.
  • Basically, Gender Budgeting is a tool for gender mainstreaming, applying a gender lens to the entire policy process.
  • It involves gender-sensitive formulation, resource allocation, and continuous monitoring to address vulnerabilities faced by women throughout their life cycle.
• Need for Gender Budgeting
  • Despite India's progress in various sectors, significant gender disparities persist in areas such as education, health, employment, and political participation.
  • Gender budgeting is necessary to address these disparities and to ensure that women's specific needs are considered in policy formulation and implementation.
  • It also promotes accountability in achieving gender equality goals.
• Introduction of Gender Budgeting in India
  • India introduced gender budgeting in 2005-06.
  • The Ministry of Women and Child Development spearheaded this initiative, which was supported by the Ministry of Finance.
  • The Indian government began by identifying and classifying budgetary allocations into three categories:
    • Part A: Schemes where 100% of the budget is allocated for women.
    • Part B: Schemes where at least 30% of the budget is allocated for women.
    • Part C: Schemes that allocate up to 30% of their funds to women
• Implementation of Gender Budgeting
  • Nodal authorities, including the Ministry of Women and Child Development at the central level, spearhead gender budgeting implementation.
  • Departments of Women and Child Development/ Social Welfare, Finance or Planning Department are also responsible for gender budget implementation in states and Union territories.

The Gender Budget (GB) of 2024-25

• About
  • The GB reached 1% of GDP estimates in 2024-25 for the first time, and overall allocations currently stand at more than ₹3 lakh crore for pro-women programmes.
  • Since its introduction in 2005-06, the Gender Budget Statement (GBS) has consistently accounted for an average of 5% of total budgetary allocations, with minor fluctuations.
  • However, in 2024-25, the share of allocations to pro-women schemes has risen to approximately 6.8% of the total budget expenditure.
• Increase driven by two main factors
  • First, the introduction of Part ‘C’ in the GBS, which includes schemes with less than 30% allocation for women.
    • E.g., the PM Kisan scheme in the agriculture sector, which now reports ₹15,000 crore, or 25% of its total outlay, under this category.
  • Second, the rise in Part A allocations, which cover schemes with 100% allocation for women.
    • Previously, Part A constituted 15-17% of GBS allocations, but this has surged to nearly 40% since 2023-24.
    • This change is largely due to the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) — both rural and urban — being reclassified from Part B to Part A.
• Issues of both over-reporting and under-reporting
  • The GBS for 2024-25 highlights issues of both over-reporting and under-reporting in gender-related allocations.
  • Over-reporting is evident in schemes like the PM Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP), where 40% of the total ₹920 crore allocation was reported without explanation.
  • Conversely, under-reporting deflates the actual spending on women’s needs.
  • For instance, the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) is now correctly reflected in Part A of the GBS with 100% allocation for women, which was underreported in previous years.
  • Additionally, while increased allocations for the Ministry of Electronics & IT have been correctly reported, pro-women allocations in schemes like PM Vishwakarma, SVANidhi, and Stand-Up India were omitted.
  • In another example, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), despite women constituting 59.3% of all person-days under the scheme, only has 33.6% of its budget reflected in Part B of the GBS.
    • This discrepancy suggests that the actual benefits to women under MGNREGA are not fully captured in the GBS.
• Way forward
  • To minimize anomalies in the GBS, it is essential to include explanations for budgetary entries.
  • Providing these rationales would enhance accounting accuracy, facilitate gender audits, and lead to better gender outcomes in government programs.
  • The recent inclusion of a third part in the GBS reflects years of advocacy by experts for improved reporting.
  • However, the persistent anomalies indicate that the GBS still lacks a scientific and systematic approach.
  • While efforts to reduce misreporting and improve the GBS quality are evident, more progress is needed.