Articles
The Gender Budget 2026 shows higher allocations but limited structural reform, continuing to prioritise time-saving welfare over gender-transformative outcomes. Without convergence, care infrastructure, and outcome assessment, increased spending alone may not improve women’s economic mobility.
The Gender Budget 2026 accounts for 9.37% of total expenditure, with significant increases in schemes related to housing, water, LPG, livelihoods and care. While the budget continues to emphasise time-saving infrastructure and welfare support for women, gaps in scheme convergence, limited urban childcare focus, underfunded safety initiatives, and the absence of gendered outcome assessments restrict its transformative potential. The budget highlights the need to shift from allocation-driven planning to impact-oriented, gender-transformative policy design that addresses women’s time poverty and structural barriers to quality employment.
Gender Budget 2026 has no big surprises. Nari Shakti remains a major component of government policy. Notable announcements include SHE Marts, which aims to move SHGs to owning business which will be fuelled through innovative and flexible financial instruments. Women in STEM are being encouraged by establishing hostels in every district to support safe housing and reduced commuting hours. Women-led groups in the fisheries sector will be strengthened by enhancing the value chain and promoting integrated development of reservoirs.
The Gender Budget accounts for approximately 9.37% of the total expenditure of the 2026-27 Budget. Compared to the 2025 Gender Budget Estimates, there is a 51850.05 crore increase in the total allocation in 2026. Parts A (100 percent women specific), B (30-99 percent , C (less than 30 percent) account 21.49 percent, 72.56 per cent, 5.95 percent of the gender budget. As usual, the largest allocation under Part A goes to PMAY- Gramin, DAY-NRLM, PMAY- Urban, LPG connections and Mission Shakti. Under Part B, the largest allocation is contributed by Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY), Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), RCH & Health System Strengthening and Saksham Anganwadi and POSHAN 2.0.An evaluation of the allocations under Part A and B shows similar patterns compared to previous years. LPG Scheme under Part A and Jal Jeevan Mission under Part B has significant increase in allocations.
The Economic Survey 2026 highlights the relatively high proportion of rural women engaged in self-employment or contributing to household enterprises. The “dual burden that female workers face in terms of caregiving activities and unpaid work” was highlighted in the Survey indicating the need for improving the quality of jobs by addressing the time poverty faced by women. This raises the question of whether simply increasing allocations is sufficient, or whether scheme outcomes should be assessed against the lived gendered realities.
A function home is a prerequisite for reducing time poverty and enabling transitioning women to quality employment. While the PMAY provided a safe shelter and ownership, a truly functional house requires access to safe drinking water, electricity, LPG connection, a waste management system and functional toilets. The schemes in Part A and B, partially support these essentials; however, data shows a lack of convergence. If a PMAY house has no Jal Jeevan Pipe connection or LPG refilling capacity, shifts the costs onto women. The increased ₹12,500 crore under the Jal Jeevan Mission in the budget reflects a heightened focus on coverage, but the scheme must resolve the “dry tap” issues in summer to ensure uninterrupted water supply. Additionally, LPG scheme which had no budget allocation in 2025 has ₹9,200.00 crore allocation in 2026, indicating a focus on sustainability.
Secondly, the Time Use Survey clearly shows that the caregiving responsibilities remain a significant barrier to women’s upward economic mobility. Saksham Anganwadi and POSHAN 2.0 and the Palna Scheme under Mission Shakti remain key drivers of the care economy. The VB-G RAM G Scheme is also focusing on the quality of assets, where women are the highest beneficiaries. This year’s budget focuses on building a strong care ecosystem covering geriatric and allied care services and training 1.5 lakh care givers; however, there is no gendered component mentioned in the budget.
Currently, anganwadis are mostly acting as feeding centres and are not full day creche. Of the 14,599 Palna centres approved as of 2025, only about 2,820 to 3,100 are fully functional. Low remuneration for crèche workers is a critical operational barrier for these centres. Consequently, these schemes are thus focusing on the “time-saving” component for women in their traditional roles rather than transforming the gendered roles, empowering women to enter the formal workforce.
Most allocations under Part A and Part B focus on rural areas. Given rapid urbanisation and urban female labour force participation remaining low, there must be renewed focus on schemes and programmes that support affordable childcare facilities in urban areas.
The Mission Sambal, which forms a major component of women’s safety initiatives like One Stop Centres, has only a 50 crore increase over last year. Given the link between Women’s safety and labour force participation, more funding for OSCs in terms of remuneration as well as capacity building is the need of the hour.
Finally, gender budget statements must move away from just quantifying the schemes where women are the beneficiaries by integrating outcome and impact assessments of the major allocations (to start with) to address the structural and functional barriers in the implementation to result in improving women’s lives. The policy orientation must shift from investing only in time-saving “hardware” to gender transformative “software” that focuses on changing the social norms using a “Time-Use Impact Assessment”.
The article was originally published in Deccan Herald
Anu Maria Francis is a Senior Associate, Research and Project Management, at the Centre for Public Policy (CPPR), Kochi, Kerala, India.
Views expressed by the authors are personal and need not reflect or represent the views of the Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR).
Anu Maria Francis is an Associate, Research at Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR). She completed her graduation in Law from National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kochi. She has worked as UPSC exam trainer and mentor with many coaching institutions in Kerala. She has also interned with a couple of organisations like Kerala State Information Commission, ACTIONAID India, Ceat Tyres Ltd, Biocon Pharma Ltd, Khaitan and Co Law Firm etc. Her academic interests pertain to legal and governance issues and education. She also has experience in handling business ventures.
