RECOGNISING GENDER BIASES, RETHINKING BUDGETS Review of Gender Responsive Budgeting in the Union Government and Select States 2012 Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability i This document is for private circulation and is not a priced publication. Copyright@2012 Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability Reproduction of this publication for educational and other non-commercial purposes is authorized, without prior written permission, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Study Team: Pooja Parvati, Bhumika Jhamb, Saumya Shrivastava and Khwaja Mobeen ur Rehman Study supported by: UN Women Designed and Printed by: Sanjiv Palliwal (SHIVAM SUNDARAM) Published by: Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability B-7 Extn./110 A (Ground Floor), Harsukh Marg, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi – 110029 Ph: +91-11- 49 200 400 / 401 / 402, Fax: +91-11- 4050 4846 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cbgaindia.org (Views expressed in this report do not necessarily represent the position of UN Women.) ii Recognising Gender Biases, Rethinking Budgets Review of Gender Responsive Budgeting in the Union Government and Select States Supported by UN Women Study Team Pooja Parvati, Bhumika Jhamb, Saumya Shrivastava and Khwaja Mobeen ur Rehman 2012 Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability iii iv ForewoRD Lack of gender responsiveness in various domains of public policy has caught the attention of many stakeholders in the country, including academicians, civil society leaders and policymakers, since quite some time. Questions relating to gender have been taken up in academic as well as policy research in a number of areas and the consequent insights and debates are very rich. Questions pertaining to gender in the context of fiscal policy too are not new in the discourse on development and public policy in India. However, research on gender responsiveness of government budgets in the country dates back only to the late 1990s. Within half a decade of such efforts getting initiated by some academics and international as well national development organisations, the Union Government of India did adopt Gender Responsive Budgeting (or Gender Budgeting) as one of its strategies for mitigating vulnerability of women and girl children in the country to different kinds of gender-based disadvantages or challenges. The efforts within the Union Government, led by the Ministry of Women and Child Development and supported by the Ministry of Finance, led to the introduction of a Gender Budget Statement in the Union Budget documents in 2005-06 along with a number of other measures such as setting up of Gender Budget Cells in various Ministries, and training and capacity building of government officials, among others. The Gender Budget Statement seems to have drawn a lot more attention (of the policy community) than the other measures, and it seems logical too since these Statements in the Union Budget as well as some of the State Budgets have been the only source of verifiable, quantitative information on government’s efforts in this domain over the last few years. However, within less than a decade of adoption of Gender Responsive Budgeting in the Union Government and some of the State Governments, a number of questions have been raised not only on the quality of efforts being carried out under this strategy but also on the potential of the strategy itself. With regard to the potential ‘impact’ of Gender Responsive Budgeting, we must take into account that – it’s an ambitious strategy that aims to amend major processes in the country’s fiscal architecture, which is vast and complex, and hence needs adequate time; and, the strategy has hardly been implemented yet, as reporting (of fund allocations) in the Gender Budget Statement, which should have been seen only as a means to facilitate improvements in the budget processes and policies in favour of women and girl children, seems to have been perceived by many Ministries / Departments as the end in itself. Nonetheless, there have also been a few encouraging stories of relevant efforts being made at the level of a State Government or Union Ministries, and such efforts need to be replicated elsewhere. v With this backdrop, CBGA has carried out this study on Gender Responsive Budgeting in the Union Government and selected States (viz. Kerala, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar), which highlights both the gaps and some positive developments. It also provides useful insights on how the strategy of Gender Responsive Budgeting should be re-interpreted by our policymakers so that we realize the required changes in planning and budgeting that are long overdue now, which in turn could facilitate mitigation of the gender-based challenges confronting women and girl children in the country. Subrat Das Executive Director Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability vi Acknowledgements We are grateful to the UN Women for supporting this study. We would like to thank Ms. Anne F. Stenhammer, Regional Programme Director, UN Women for her immense support to the overall initiative of unbraiding the gender question. We are thankful for the support and leadership provided by Ms. Sushma Kapoor, Deputy Regional Programme Director, UN Women. We are grateful to Ms. Yamini Mishra, GRB Specialist, UN Women for her guidance and invaluable support to the research we carried out. We remain indebted to Mr. Subrat Das, Executive Director, CBGA for having etched the contours for us to follow through and advising us throughout the study with his rich insights. our gratitude to all the government officials in the Union Government Ministries and Departments in the four study states for sharing their invaluable insights and facilitating our data collection. We wish to specifically thank Dr. Mridul Eapen, Honorary Fellow, Centre for Development Studies and former member of Kerala State Planning Board, Ms. Shila Unnithan, Chief – Social Services Division, Kerala State Planning Board, and Ms. Anita Nazare, Deputy Advisor, Fiscal Policy Institute, Karnataka for all their support and guidance to the study. We are thankful to the entire team at CBGA who supported us throughout the study in more ways than one. We thank the Finance and Administrative team for their commendable assistance throughout the study. We are particularly grateful to Ms. Kanika Kaul, Mr. Manzoor Ali, Ms. Neha Hui, Mr. Narendra Jena and Ms. Priyadarshini Mohanty for their valuable and timely research support. All errors and omissions, if any, are solely our responsibility. Study Team vii viii Contents S. Section Page No. Foreword Acknowledgments List of Tables & Figures Summary 1 1 Introduction 11 2 Situation Analysis 21 3 Review of Gender Budgeting by the Union Government 31 4 Review of Gender Budgeting in Bihar 49 5 Review of Gender Budgeting in Karnataka 57 6 Review of Gender Budgeting in Kerala 65 7 Review of Gender Budgeting in Madhya Pradesh 73 8 Gender Responsiveness of Select Schemes 81 9 Recommendations 93 Annexures 1 Inaccuracies in Part B of Union Govt.’s Gender Budget Statement 2011-12 101 Comparison of outlays Earmarked for Women in Different Schemes (as per Part B of Union Govt.’s GB Statement) with Total outlays for the 2 106 Schemes (as per the Detailed Demands for Grants of the respective Union Ministries) Provisions earmarked for Women in Ministries / Departments reporting 3 126 in Part B of the Gender Budget Statement 2011-12 4 Analysis of Gender Budget Statement in Karnataka 165 Women’s Component (WC) in State Plan Programmes in Kerala (as 5 186 compiled from Annual Plan 2011-12) Comparison of outlays Earmarked for Women in Different Schemes (as per Part B of the GB Statement) in Madhya Pradesh with Total Outlays for 6 197 the Schemes (as per the Detailed Demands for Grants of the respective Departments) ix LIST oF TABLES Table No. Table 1: Select Indicators on Status of Women in India Table 2: HDI Rank of Study States (2000 and 2008) Table 3: HDI Indices for Study States (2000 and 2008) Table 4: Sex Ratio in Study States (2001 and 2011) Table 5: Sex Ratio in the Age group 0-6 Years in Study States (2001 and 2011) Table 6: Infant Mortality Rate by Gender in Study States (2000 and 2009) Table 7: Under-Five Mortality Rate (U5MR) by Gender in Study States (2008) Table 8: Life Expectancy at Birth by Gender in Study States (1992-96 and 2004) Table 9: Projected Life Expectancy at Birth by Gender in Study States (2006-10) Table 10: Maternal Mortality Ratio in Study States (2001-03, 2004-06 and 2007-09) Table 11: Percentage of Women with BMI<18.5 by social groups in Study States (1998-99 and 2005-06) Table 12: Percentage of Women with Anaemia in Study States (1998-99 and 2005-06) Table 13: Workforce in Government Health System (Rural) in Study States (2008) Table 14: Literacy Rate (Rural) in Study States Table 15: Literacy Rate (Urban) in Study States Table 16: Net Attendance Ratio at Primary Level by Social Groups (Rural), 2007-08 Table 17: out of School Children (6 to 17 years) by social groups (2007-08) Table 18: Female Teachers by Levels of Education in Study States (2007-08) Table 19: Categorization of Inconsistencies in Part B of the GB Statement Table 20: Women - Specific Budget Allocations in DBT (2005-06) Table 21: Existing Format for presenting Information in outcome Budgets Table 22: Recommended Format for Gender-based Profile of Public Expenditure Table 23: Summary of Gender Budget Statement of Bihar (in Rs. crore) Table 24: Snapshot of GB Statement in Bihar Table 25: Matching Allocations in GB Statement with Scheme Guidelines for Bihar Table 26: Staff Composition in Select Departments in Bihar Table 27: Summary of Gender Budget Statement in Karnataka (in Rs. Crore) Table 28: Number of Schemes under KMAY and Gender Budgeting in 2010-11, Karnataka Table 29: Proportion of Allocations Reported in Part B of the Karnataka GB Statement visà-vis Total Plan Allocations of Select Schemes Table 30: Summary of Gender Budget Statement in Kerala in 2008-09 (in Rs.