Abstract
Despite being one of India’s most economically progressive states, Maharashtra’s human development trajectory has been plagued by severe inequalities with pronounced gendered implications. In order to unpack the role of the state in responding to the needs of women, girls and transgender persons through policies and budgets, this article deep dives into the public investment for gender equality and women’s empowerment in Maharashtra. We map policy priorities from the State Policy for Women 2014 to schemes and budgets as reported in the state’s first Gender Budget Statement 2020–2021. The study finds there is a large gap between policy and implementation, and that the investment on women, girls and transgender persons is abysmally inadequate. The analysis points to the lack of holistic investment across critical sectors, absence of a transformative enabling environment and insufficient interventions for the intersectional gender needs of the most vulnerable.
Introduction
Women account for nearly 48% of Maharashtra’s population. While the state is the top contributor to India’s GDP, human development remains unequal and disparate across population groups (Department of Planning, 2013), with severe gendered implications. It reflects in women’s low labour force participation, rising incidents of gender-based crime, poor health and nutritional indicators among girls and women, high incidence of child marriage and teenage pregnancies and high dropout rates among girls in secondary and senior secondary. These issues point to the importance of the state’s role in addressing gender gaps through its policies but more importantly through its investment to create an environment where all genders can realise their full potential.
Over the last decade, Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) has emerged as a critical accountability mechanism for furthering gender equality and women’s empowerment. This form of planning and budgeting assesses outlays made for policy prescriptions and the extent to which they translate into desired outputs and outcomes. In doing so, it emphasises two central ideas (Budlender et al., 2002). First, government policies and budgets are not ‘neutral’ as is often believed by policymakers, and as a result, marginalised groups may derive less benefit than others. And second, that populations have differential needs based on vulnerabilities associated with gender, age, caste, religion, physical abilities, incomes and geographies. GRB addresses the disproportionate impact of these vulnerabilities on women, girls and transgender people while also recognising the intersectionality of gender needs. Gender budgeting is not a separate budget for women, girls and transgenders but simply advocates for action to make government policies and programmes more equitable and gender inclusive.
In this context, this article aims to unpack the public investment for gender equality and women’s empowerment in Maharashtra based on three main objectives. First, provide an understanding of policy priorities for gender equality and women’s empowerment as identified in the Maharashtra State Women’s Policy 2014 (Department of Women and Child Development, 2014). Second, map existing schemes and budgets as reported in Maharashtra’s first Gender Budget Statement (GBS) FY 2020–2021 (Department of Finance [DoF], 2020) to these policy priorities. And finally, identify gaps and inadequacies in public spending for gender needs in the state. The article is arranged as follows: the second section details the methodology used; the third section describes the framework of analysis; the fourth section presents the findings and discussions from the mapping and budgetary exercise; and the fifth section gives a few cross-sectoral observations.
Methodology
The analysis was carried out in three steps. First, policy priorities from the Maharashtra State Policy for Women 2014 were categorised as per the analytical framework described in the third section. This included understanding sectoral priorities, to then examine the extent to which women’s triple role has been addressed and whether policy priorities are transformative in nature. Second, all schemes and programmes reported in the GBS 2020–2021 were mapped to these policy provisions. It may be noted that a particular policy prescription may have more than one scheme/programme addressing it, and some policy priorities have no programmatic interventions. In the third step, budgetary allocations of interventions were collated to identify gaps in the investment for women, girls and transgender persons. The authors wish to clarify that the budgets figures in this analysis are based on sex-disaggregated beneficiary data and indicate the exact proportion of funds flowing to women, girls and transgender persons within schemes reported in the GBS 2020–2021.
Limitations of the Analysis
First, the scope of this article is limited to understanding policy initiatives in the Maharashtra State Policy for Women 2014. It does not include other legal and policy frameworks pertaining to gender equality and women’s empowerment. Second, the data source for this analysis is the GBS 2020–2021, published by the Department of Finance, Government of Maharashtra. Only those schemes and interventions reported by line departments have been considered for the purpose of this analysis and under-reporting may have led to omission of certain schemes. Some obvious omissions are the scheme for provision of employment under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, the National Creche Scheme, honorarium for Anganwadi workers, and spending on girl students by the School Education Department. While we are aware of these exclusions, this analysis is still a worthwhile exercise. And third, owing to the intersectional nature of gender needs, some policy priorities and schemes may pertain to more than one category of the analytical framework. However, to avoid double counting, they have been considered only once for the budgetary exercise.
Framework of Analysis
The framework chosen for this analysis has been adapted from a mix of policy documents and academic literature to adequately capture the multi-layered nature of gender needs. The conceptual framework comprises two parts: (a) focus areas/sectors defined in the draft National Policy for Women 2016 (Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2016) and (b) Caroline Moser’s Gender Planning and Development Framework (1993).
The primary analysis is aimed at understanding sectoral priorities for gender equality and women’s empowerment. The study uses seven focus areas as defined in the draft National Policy for Women 2016. These are health (including food security and nutrition), education, economy, ending gender-based violence, enabling environment, governance and decision making and environment and climate change.
The secondary analysis is based on feminist scholar Caroline Moser’s Gender Planning and Development Framework, which is an amalgamation of two concepts: (a) women’s triple role in society—reproductive role, productive role and community role and (b) practical and strategic gender needs. Moser (1993, pp. 28–36) defines women’s work as a sum of their reproductive, productive and community-managing roles. Reproductive work includes the biological role of childbearing, as well as other unpaid household and care work. Productive work is usually done in exchange for payment in cash or kind and comprises market production with an exchange value as well as subsistence/home production. The community role comprises activities undertaken primarily by women at the community level, as an extension of their reproductive role. This is done to ensure the provision of resources for collective consumption, such as water, healthcare and education. It either is voluntary, unpaid labour, undertaken in ‘free time’ or pays a meagre ‘honorarium’ in return for work.
Further, the Moser framework also categorises gender needs as practical and strategic. Practical needs pertain to immediate needs that affect the condition of women, while strategic needs are more transformative in nature and could potentially impact gender norms and relations. Although these categories are not mutually exclusive, they help in understanding the extent to which gender planning and budgeting is transformative.
Findings and Discussion
Overview of Maharashtra’s Gender Budget (in ₹ crore).
Summary of Interventions and Investment in the 2020–2021 Gender Budget.
The details of the sectoral findings are presented in the remainder of this section.
Health and Nutrition
The health and nutrition sector reported 14 gender responsive interventions in GBS 2020–2021, for which the budget allocation was ₹1,137 crore. This accounted for about 15% of the gender budget and 0.2% of the state’s total budget for the year. Our mapping revealed that the main focus of this spending was for reproductive needs of women and girls. Nearly 76% of the health investment reported was for nutrition to pregnant and lactating women, which include schemes such as Amrut Ahar, Poshan Abhiyan and Supplementary Nutrition under Integrated Child Development Services, and for ASHA workers’ honorarium (Figure 1). While nutrition schemes had a total allocation of ₹445 crore, allocation for ASHA workers was ₹428 crore. Further, there were six interventions for antenatal care (ANC), postnatal care (PNC) and institutional deliveries with an allocation of ₹160 crore, and three interventions for menstrual hygiene management, specifically provision of sanitary pads, with an allocation of ₹87 crore.
Our analysis points to the lack of a holistic approach to gender responsive health. Barring reproductive health, all other aspects of physical and mental health pertaining to women and girls have been largely ignored (Figure 1). According to the National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS) 20.8% women in the state have below normal Body Mass Index, 23.4% women are obese or overweight, and 54.5% of non-pregnant women are anaemic (International Institute of Population Sciences [IIPS], 2020). About 12.4% of women have high or very high blood sugar levels and 23.1% are hypertensive. The NFHS-5 findings also show that only 2.3% have ever undergone a screening test for cervical cancer and only 1.3% have ever undergone screenings for breast cancer. The GBS does not report any interventions to address health disorders commonly prevalent among women such as cancer (cervical, ovarian, breast), UTIs, endocrine disorders, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, etc. Issues pertaining to menopause have also been overlooked. Similarly, there were no special allocations for women’s mental health issues despite evidence of them being more susceptible to stress and fatigue, especially owing to the triple burden (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, 2006).
Some critical areas mandated by the State Policy for Women 2014 also remain unaddressed. These include health insurance for sex reassignment surgeries for transgender persons, sensitisation of medical staff towards transgender persons, training for HIV service management at all government hospitals, and special facilities for senior women, physically and mentally challenged women, folk artistes and sex workers. The policy also mentions enforcing minimum standards of hygiene and sanitation for domestic workers and the need for developing a women’s health index. However, no allocations were found for these policy provisions in the GBS.
Education
The education sector comprised the largest portion of the gender budget at 37% and was about 0.7% of the state’s budget for 2020–2021. This included 25 gender-responsive interventions as reported in the GBS, for which budget allocation in FY 2020–2021 was ₹2,739 crore. It must be clarified that majority of the School Education Department’s allocations were not reported as no sex disaggregated data was available to calculate the proportion of funds flowing to girls. Within this budget for gender responsive education, nearly 96% was on account of construction and upkeep of ashramshaalas and scholarships in school education (various pre- and post-matric scholarships). The total budget for seven ashramshaala schemes for FY 2020–2021 was ₹1,681 crore, while that for eight scholarship schemes was ₹935 crore. There were two interventions to provide transportation facilities for girls under the Human Development Mission with an allocation of ₹77 crore, and two interventions to promote enrolment of girls with an allocation of ₹5 crore. Only five interventions were reported for promoting higher education, with an allocation of ₹40 crore (Figure 2).
The budgetary allocations in education point towards three critical issues. Despite investment in girls’ education by Tribal Development Department, Scheduled Tribe (ST), girls continue to dropout earlier than girls belonging to other communities. The Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) for ST girls in the state in senior secondary is 43.88% (Ministry of Human Resource Development [MHRD] 2018). Second, investment for education of Scheduled Caste (SC) girls is negligible, who again are among the most deprived. The state’s GER for SC girls in senior secondary is 73.12% (MHRD, 2018). Third, higher education for women and girls does not appear to be a state priority. As per the All India Survey on Higher Education 2018–2019, the GER for higher education of women in the state is just 30.3%, and yet the investment in 2020–2021 was only 1% of the state’s gender budget (MHRD, 2019).
The mapping exercise revealed a number of unaddressed provisions when compared to the State Policy for Women 2014. These include a special website to display opportunities for women’s education, special consideration for women teachers and professors, and an independent gender sensitivity curriculum framing committee for all universities, among others. For vulnerable populations, the policy emphasises promoting educational opportunities for transgender persons and survivors of violence and trafficking. It mentions the need to promote local language education especially for Adivasi and Dalit women. For women with disabilities, the policy mandates having schools, training centres and transport facilities. All of these critical areas had no interventions reported in the GBS 2020–2021.
Economy 1
There were 37 interventions to promote women’s participation in the economy, with a budget of ₹1,508 crore for FY 2020–2021. This was 20% of the gender budget and 0.4% of the state’s budget. These interventions address subsectors of agriculture, industry, labour and employment and the service sector. Nearly 64% of gender responsive investment for the economy, as reported in the GBS 2020–2021, was for women’s self-help groups (SHGs), amounting to nearly ₹954 crore (Figure 3). This was on account of schemes such as financial assistance under the State Livelihoods Mission, Sumatibai Sukalikar Udyogini Mahila Sakshamikaran Yojana, Grant in Aid for SHGs, Grants to Mahila Mandals and Mahalakshmi Saras Exhibition, which are run by the Departments of Rural Development, Minorities Development and Women and Child Development. There were four interventions for skills development, with a budget of ₹307 crore.
The female labour force participation rate (FLPR) in the state is 24.1%, as compared to that of men, which is 57.6% (Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation [MoSPI], 2019). A steady decline in FLPR has been reported in the rural and urban sectors in Maharashtra since 2004–2005 (IWWAGE, 2020). Against this backdrop, the mapping and budgetary analysis undertaken in this study points out some major areas, pertaining to women’s economic role, that have been overlooked. First, the investment to promote women’s role in agriculture and allied occupations was only ₹29 crore. This included a financial assistance scheme under Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana run by the department of Rural Development, provision of agricultural equipment and other programmes for supply of cows, buffaloes, goats, poultry, etc., by the Department of Animal Husbandry. Additionally, there were four interventions by the Animal Husbandry Department for provision of financial assistance to women’s cooperatives in farming, with an allocation of ₹49 crore. Poor allocation for women in agriculture and allied occupations by the state points toward a lack of recognition of their work in the sector and does not address the resultant exclusion from rights and entitlements such as institutional credit, pension and irrigation sources, among others. Second, interventions for the informal sector are missing, with only one scheme for Domestic Workers’ Welfare Board, where too budget utilisation in FY 2018–2019 was nil. There were no schemes/programmes to create an enabling environment for women employed in other parts of the informal economy including migrants, agricultural labourers, construction workers, those working in micro, small and medium enterprises, and other household industries. Third, the investment for job creations/provision of employment or entrepreneurship opportunities was negligible, with a total investment of ₹73 crore across 10 interventions. Of this, ₹60 crore was allocated for Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal. The remaining ₹13 crore was for programmes such rural self-employment training institute, Creation of Libraries in Employment and Self Employment Guidance Centres, Gramin Village Entrepreneurship Programme, Employment/job fairs, training of Adivasi candidates, etc.
Besides, a number of other implementation lacunae were revealed through the mapping exercise. The state policy mentions the need to address special requirement of farm widows and abandoned women, who are often dependent on agriculture. The need to provide sources of livelihood, employment opportunities and skills training to many vulnerable groups including persons with disabilities, transgender persons, tamasha artistes and survivors of flesh trade, and an unemployment allowance for those in the unorganised sector, although emphasised in the policy, remain unaddressed in implementation.
Ending Gender-based Violence
As per the mapping and budgetary exercise, 12 schemes/interventions were found for ending GBV in the state in FY 2020–2021. The total allocation for the year was a meagre ₹220 crore, that is, about 3% of the gender budget and 0.05% of the state’s total budget for FY 2020–2021. Of this investment, 67% (₹147 crore) was on account of only one scheme, that is the Mumbai City Safe City Project for Women under Nirbhaya Fund (Figure 4). It may be noted that the bulk of this expenditure is undertaken for surveillance, that is, installation of CCTV cameras, and not for direct interventions against GBV (Accountability Initiative & UNICEF, 2019). The remaining ₹73 crore comprised all other schemes for protection against violence, including victim compensation programmes, Manodhairya Yojana, Reception Centres, State Homes and Protection Homes, Counselling Centres, Swadhar Greh Yojana, Ujjwala Yojana, Shelter Homes, Rehabilitation of Devadasis, cyber-crime prevention and abolition of dowry system.
The mapping exercise showed that only two departments reported schemes for ending GBV in the GBS, that is, Home Department and the Department of Women and Child Development. Of them nearly all interventions in the state are implemented by the Women and Child Department, pointing to the lack of an intersectoral understanding and approach to the issue.
Further, most schemes reported in the GBS deal with response to violence and there is a dearth of preventive measures. The importance of prevention of violence cannot be overstated given the gravity of the situation in the state. As per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) (2020), 37,144 crimes were committed against women in the state in 2019. Maharashtra accounted for 9.2% of cases in India, the third highest state in the country after Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Another NCRB (2019) report on missing women states that Maharashtra registered the maximum number of missing women in the country from 2016 to 2018 (of 28,316 cases, 29,279 cases and 33,964 cases, respectively). The NFHS-5 reports that at least 25.2% of ever-married women have experienced spousal violence, while 3.3% of ever-married women have experienced violence during pregnancy (IIPS, 2020). The onslaught of the ‘shadow pandemic’ (UN Women, 2020) during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 has worsened matters with a steep rise in child marriage, child trafficking and domestic violence in the state (Chakraborty, 2020). In view of this, the need to bolster investment for ending GBV in the state can hardly be overemphasised.
Enabling Environment
To reduce the burden of women’s domestic work and time spent on unpaid care work, an enabling environment is essential. This includes housing and shelter, drinking water and sanitation, social security, infrastructure, sports and the role of media. As per the GBS, there were 43 gender responsive interventions to create an enabling environment in the state. The total investment for this in FY 2020–2021 was ₹1,696 crore, accounting for about 23% of the gender budget, and 0.4% of the total budget. Majority investment under this focus area was for housing schemes and provision of hostels to students. Specifically, two housing schemes (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and Shabri Tribal Housing Scheme) with an allocation of ₹947 crore, and 12 hostel schemes (mostly run by the Tribal Development Department) with an allocation of ₹510 crore, accounted for 86% of the entire budget for enabling environment in FY 2020–2021 (Figure 5).
There were six social security interventions, which comprised two maternity benefit schemes, one for pension to widows, one for social protection of girls, and a common marriage scheme. The total allocation for social security was ₹213 crore in FY 2020–2021. While there was one intervention for a Transgender Welfare Board, the funds for this remain unutilised as the board is reportedly yet to be activated (ANI, 2021). Investment in gender responsive infrastructure was minimal, with only three interventions being reported in the statement, that is, a total allocation of ₹4 crore. These include a programme for a Ladies’ Special Bus Service and two others for construction and repair work in jails for women barracks, toilets, bathrooms and changing rooms. It is noteworthy that there is some investment to make sports more gender inclusive, as mandated by the State Policy for Women, with an allocation of ₹22 crore for 20 interventions that are implemented by the School Education and Sports Department.
Most conspicuous by its absence in the GBS is the subsector on drinking water and sanitation. As per the NHFS-5, 6.5% of the state’s population live in households which do not have an improved drinking-water source, 2 while nearly 28% do not have improved sanitation facilities 3 (IIPS, 2020). The State Policy for Women addresses these important practical needs including providing sterilised water in all villages, so women can avoid walking long distances to fetch water and mandating clean bathrooms with water to be made available at all public spaces (bus stops, railways stations, under flyovers, highways, etc.) and at all educational institutes. Further, it states that women’s toilets be built every 25 km. However, no schemes pertaining to this subsector were reported in the GBS.
The use of media, literature and arts to change the patriarchal views of society is an important strategic need that has been espoused in the state policy. It mentions that the media must be used effectively to highlight services and schemes for women, girls and transgender persons. It also stresses on appropriate representation of women and girls in the media, but no interventions were reported to this effect.
Also missing in implementation, as per the GBS, are special provisions for marginalised and vulnerable groups. The state policy emphasises the provision of shelters and ownership of housing for vulnerable folk artistes, persons with disabilities, Devadasis and transgender persons. It also mandates that special efforts be taken to ensure welfare of vulnerable groups including seniors, physical and mental disabilities to be directly transferred to families of beneficiaries, single women and widows, wives and children of those working in defence services, wives and children of prisoners, folk artistes and transgender persons. However, the intersectional needs of these groups have not been addressed through any provisions, as per the programmes reported in the GBS.
Governance and Decision Making
The State Policy for Women 2014 has a number of provisions to aid women’s community role through their involvement in governance and decision making. It includes creating a training policy for women elected representatives, raising the number of village level women workers up to 50%, and ensuring that the woman’s name appears alongside her husband’s on property cards of house and land. However, currently no programmes or interventions pertaining to these policy provisions were reported in the GBS. It may be mentioned here that while the government has taken steps towards innovations such as institutionalising Mahila Sabhas, concerted efforts are required to further women’s participation in governance and decision making.
Environment and Climate Change
Given the climate crisis in the state, the state policy identifies women as an important stakeholder in protecting the environment and acting towards climate change. To fulfil this community role, the policy prescribes formation of women environment groups at village levels, training in use of renewable sources of energy including solar and bio-gas equipment and creating employment opportunities. Women’s role has also been identified in waste management, social forestation, economical use of water, saving water and its reuse. But the GBS did not report any implementation measures for these provisions in FY 2020–2021.
Cross-Sectoral Observations
Women/Transgenders from the Most Vulnerable Groups in Maharashtra.
Second, the triple burden of reproductive, productive and community roles borne by women has not been adequately addressed. Women’s reproductive role has been reduced to only their biological role, with no investment to reduce the burden of women’s unpaid domestic and care work. This is concerning especially in light of the results from a recent Time Use Survey, which showed that women in Maharashtra spend about 316 minutes a day on unpaid domestic and caregiving services for household members, while men spend only 32 minutes for the same (MoSPI, 2019). In the case of their participation in economic activities, the investment is inadequate and there is a serious dearth of an enabling environment to help them fulfil their productive role. And finally, their community role is overlooked—especially in areas such as waste management and drinking water sanitation. Despite being providers of critical services such as health, nutrition and education, frontline workers such as ASHA and Anganwadi workers are only paid a meagre honorarium (Neetha, 2021).
Third, the analysis has pointed to lacuna of programmes that address intersectional needs of vulnerable sections, which form a significant part of our population (Table 3). These include SC and ST women, transgender persons, farm widows, persons with disabilities, folk artistes, sex workers, domestic workers, and so on.
Fourth, while the publication of the first GBS by the Government of Maharashtra was a landmark step in institutionalising GRB, there is strong scope to improve the reporting process in the coming years.
Conclusion
This analysis deep dives into the investments made by the Government of Maharashtra for gender equality and women’s empowerment, as reported in the Annual Gender Budget Statement FY 2020–2021. The overall investment on women, girls and other minority gender groups was found to be abysmally inadequate and low, with the total allocation amounting to less than 2% of the state’s total budget. Sectorally, the highest allocations were for education—mainly on account of Ashramshaala and scholarship schemes. This is followed by investment in an enabling environment—within which majority of the budget was for housing and shelter, and the third highest allocations were for the economic role of women, girls and transgender persons—where majority of the budget is for financial assistance to SHGs. Areas such as physical and mental health, protection against violence, preventing dropouts among adolescent girls and promoting women’s higher education, creation of employment and livelihood, and investment for a holistic enabling environment have been largely overlooked.
While the State Policy for Women 2014 and the draft National Policy for Women 2016 focus on a number of critical areas for gender equality and women’s empowerment, the state’s corresponding investment is found to be limited and arguably lacks the potential to be transformative. The focus of allocations has remained on addressing practical gender needs. In view of this, there is need for a sustainable and progressive approach to Gender Responsive Planning and Budgeting and to develop a Gender Action Plan for increased transparency and accountability in public investment for women, girls and transgender persons.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Chandrika Singh, Kamini Kapadia and Joemet Jose for their review and inputs. Errors or omissions are solely of the authors.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was undertaken as part of the evidence building initiatives of the Social Policy Work Plan of UNICEF Maharashtra.