Women's advocacy groups would no doubt have been heartened by Finance Minister P Chidambaram's provision for gender-sensitive budgeting for the first time and the generous 36 per cent increase in allocations for such programmes in Budget 2005-06.
But when you study the section on gender budgeting in the Budget documents, it is difficult not to be disappointed. What it contains is a bald statement of the Budget allocations, net of recoveries, of programmes and schemes the government undertakes for the welfare of women and children.
Many of these schemes have been in existence for years without having a noticeable impact on the status of women in India. In earlier Budgets, much of this information could have been found under the ministries concerned.
There are, to be fair, some sensible inclusions under this new head like drinking water and biogas programmes. Although these are not strictly women-centred investments, it is well known that women stand to gain the most from access to clean water and healthier cooking fuel.
So what does this maiden gender-budgeting exercise tell us? Merely that the government proposes to put aside less than 3 per cent of its total expenditure in the upcoming financial year to improve the lot of women.
Overall, it is unlikely to make a great difference, beyond, I suspect, greatly irritating bureaucrats for adding yet another complication to these complex documents.
Indeed, it is hard to escape the view that, like the huge hand-outs for the morass of anti-poverty and social development schemes in this Budget, this too is more an attempt to assuage the demands of the Left and fulfil the requirements of the Common Minimum Programme in letter rather than spirit.
But the broader, more serious issue remains unaddressed: What about the outcomes? Does merely dishing out larger sums of money to a welter of schemes satisfy the gender-budgeting commitment? What about assessing women's contribution to the economy and the impact of budgetary allocations on women?
Chidambaram referred to precisely this in the broader context of economic policy in his Budget speech, but it applies just as much to gender budgeting.
If this effort is not to degenerate into mere tokenism, the finance ministry would do well to work on a meaningful mechanism for data collection and benefit-incidence, as an expert group has recommended. But this will be tough, considering the unreliable methods of data collection and any budgeting exercise is as good as the quality of its information.
How far, for instance, do you narrow-cast expenditures? It is broadly well known that women pay a bigger price than men for poverty and backwardness in terms of health, access to education, and status. But how precisely does, say, a biogas project benefit women?
Can it be related to improvement in women's health? Does it free up their time to seek part-time employment? Obviously the co-relations can never be established so directly--since men stand to benefit just as much--yet some sort of assessment is necessary to maximise the value of government spending.
The difficulties involved can be gauged from the fact that the department of women and child development had stopped publishing a separate chapter on gender-budget initiatives in its annual report after about two years.
Ten states in India have also introduced gender budgeting but the lack of a standardised nomenclature for the various schemes has made it difficult to replicate or assess them.
Perhaps it is unfair to blame the finance minister for this inadequate start. The concept of gender budgeting is a nineties' trend that has been introduced mostly in Commonwealth countries. It is yet to prove itself a major tool for social development in other countries too. Available literature suggests that there are two problems involved: one is ownership and advocacy and the second is methodology.
In Australia, for instance, where it was first introduced in 1984, a national commission reported difficulty in monitoring agency performance and the resistance of budget officers.
In South Africa, where it was introduced in 1997, the impact is reported to be more favourable, but again, data collection remained an issue. This last was true of Sri Lanka as well.
In the main, like other elements of budgetary reform (environment impact statements, for example), it will probably take at least half a decade or more for usable methodologies and analytical techniques to emerge.
Ahead of that, it is hoped that the exercise will not be abandoned. Warts and all, gender budgeting is a more useful way to address women's issues in a developing country than the mindless proposal for the reservation of seats in Parliament or even gender-specific income tax breaks.
So perhaps the finance minister has made a good start in this respect. His challenge--as much as that of the government--would be to build on it so that it grows beyond being a pet peeve of feminists and the Left into a meaningful tool for policy planning.The views expressed here are personal.
