Watch Now

GENDER BUDGETING IN INDIA – Allocations & Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

India has implemented Gender Responsive Budgeting (GRB) for over two decades, with steadily increasing allocations and institutional mechanisms. However, the Union Budget 2026 once again raises critical questions about the effectiveness of this framework. Persistent gaps between Budget Estimates and Revised Estimates, limited utilisation in key schemes, and a continued emphasis on welfare-oriented spending suggest the need for a deeper examination of whether GRB is achieving its stated objectives of gender equality and economic inclusion.

The Union Budget 2026 Gender Budget Statement reflects a continued upward trajectory in allocations for gender-responsive programmes, with the share of the gender budget reaching approximately 9.37 per cent of total expenditure. However, this quantitative increase has not been accompanied by a corresponding shift toward structural reforms that could enhance women’s economic mobility and agency.

While flagship schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin, DAY-NRLM, and Mission Shakti remain dominant within Part A (100 per cent women-specific allocations), and significant allocations are reported under pro-women schemes in Parts B and C, persistent gaps emerge in areas such as care infrastructure, scheme convergence, safety initiatives, and outcome measurement.

This assessment underscores a broader policy challenge: without an integrated approach that links fiscal allocations to measurable outcomes, gender budgeting risks reinforcing welfare-oriented support rather than advancing transformative change.

This webinar examines gender budgeting not merely as a fiscal tool, but as a governance and accountability mechanism.

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS

The suggested key points for discussion are given below:

1. How should success in GRB be measured: allocations, outcomes, or structural change? Are current indicators adequate to capture gendered impacts across sectors?
2. Does the budget support women’s participation in labour markets, entrepreneurship, and asset ownership? How far do existing schemes enable mobility, skills, and access to formal employment?
3. What explains the persistent gap between allocations and utilisation? Revised estimates and underspending in Section A of the Gender Budget.
4. Are allocations driven by planning and demand, or by accounting classifications?
5. Is gender budgeting influencing core economic policy? Is the integration of GRB into infrastructure, urban development, transport, and industrial policy effective? What are the limitations of scheme-centric approaches?

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE DISCUSSION

The Centre for Public Policy Research convened a panel discussion on Gender Responsive Budgeting in India to reflect on more than twenty years of its implementation. The session featured contributions from Dr Vibhuti Patel and Dr Sona Mitra, who examined trends in budgetary allocations, the gradual transition towards outcome-oriented assessment frameworks, and the structural constraints embedded within the Indian economy.

Evolution and Structure of Gender Budgeting

Gender budgeting in India formally began in 2005-06 and is represented as Statement 13 in the Union Budget. Traditionally, it has been divided into two parts:

• Part A: Schemes with 100% allocation for women (e.g., Nirbhaya Fund, Beti Bachao Beti Padhao).
• Part B: Schemes where at least 30% of the allocation is intended for women (e.g., MGNREGA).
• Part C: Introduced recently for the 2025-26 budget, this part includes schemes with less than 30% allocation for women, intended to capture a wider “gender footprint” of public expenditure.

As of the latest budget, total allocations for gender-responsive initiatives account for approximately 9.37% of the total union budget expenditure, with 57 ministries establishing gender budgeting cells.

Outlays vs. Outcomes

A primary critique raised by the panellists is the focus on outlays (spending targets) rather than outcomes (actual impact).

• Welfare vs. Transformation: Dr. Patel notes that while GRB has addressed “practical gender needs” (reducing drudgery through water or electrification), it often fails to address “strategic gender needs” that challenge patriarchal systems.
• Underutilization of Funds: The Nirbhaya Fund serves as a key example; despite large allocations since 2013, funds remain significantly underutilized due to bureaucratic lethargy and a lack of state-level proposals.
• Digital Barriers: The mandatory use of digital authentication and biometrics can lead to “wage theft” or exclusion when systems fail to recognize working-class women from marginalized sections.

The Care Economy and Labor Participation

Dr. Sona Mitra emphasizes the role of the care economy in GRB.

• Unpaid Work: Data from the 2019 Time Use Survey shows that women in India perform over 80% of all unpaid work, spending an average of 5 hours daily on these tasks compared to just 30 minutes for men.
• Barriers to Employment: This disproportionate burden is a major reason why women struggle to enter the formal labor force.
• 3R Framework: Effective GRB should follow the “Recognize, Reduce, Redistribute” framework to make women’s invisible economic contributions visible.

Institutional and Regional Gaps

• Decentralization: There is a critical need for financial decentralization to Panchayats, which are the primary contact point for communities but often lack the funds to implement developmental interventions.
• Best Practices: Kerala is highlighted as a leader for integrating gender planning into local governance and being the only state to include a transgender budgeting component. Karnataka is also noted for its “Kusina Mane” initiative, which converged unspent funds from various departments to provide creches for construction workers.
• Intersectionality: The panellists argue that budgeting must move beyond the gender binary to include gender-diverse and transgender persons, whose needs (like pension or shelter) are often neglected by the union budget.

Critical Perspectives on Specific Schemes

• LPG Connections: Schemes like providing LPG connections are often placed in Part A (100% women-specific), which critics argue reinforces gender stereotypes by signalling that cooking is exclusively “women’s work”.
• Part C Concerns: While Part C aims for expansion, it currently accounts for only 6% of the gender budget and is dominated by schemes like PM-KISAN, leading to concerns that it may be inflating figures without providing clear qualitative improvements.

Recommendations for Reform

The panelists suggest several paths forward to strengthen GRB:

1. Gender-Disaggregated Data: Establishing robust data systems to track specific needs across different regions and intersections (caste, disability, age).
2. Capacity Building: Training government officials not just to allocate budgets, but to conduct gender audits and monitor outcome indicators.
3. Challenging Norms: Moving beyond “macho” or misogynistic institutional cultures, particularly in sectors like sports, where facilities and unit costs for women are often drastically lower than for men.

Panellists

Dr Sona Mitra

Senior Advisor – Institute for What Works to Advance Gender Equality, and Visiting researcher- Wits University South Africa

Dr Sona Mitra – Dr. Sona Mitra is a senior adviser to IWWAGE and a visiting researcher at the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies at Wits University South Africa. She worked in the area of women, labour and development for close to two decades and specialises in improving women’s engagement with the care economy and measurement of work. She was recognised as one of the ‘Care Champions’ by the UNESCAP and the UNWomen in 2024 at the Bangkok Asia-Pacific Ministerial Conference on the Beijing+30 Review. Sona is an active contributor and advocate for transforming the discourse on centralising the measurement and care work of women and publishes regularly on these issues. She has worked as aTechnical Consultant with several UN entities and other international organisations.

Dr Vibhuti Patel

Economist and Professor (Retired), Advanced Centre for Women’s Studies, School of Development Studies, TISS, Mumbai

Prof. Vibhuti Patel is an economist and a leading scholar in gender and development studies. She earned her BA and MA in Economics from M.S. University, Baroda, and her PhD from the University of Mumbai. She was a Commonwealth Post-Doctoral Fellow at the London School of Economics. She retired as Professor at the Advanced Centre for Women’s Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and previously served as Professor and Head of Economics at SNDT Women’s University. With over four decades of research, her work focuses on women’s work participation, gender inequalities, development economics, and intersectionality.

Adv Anu Maria Francis

Senior Associate, Research and Project Management, Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR), Kochi

Anu Maria Francis works as a Senior Associate (Research and Project Management) at the Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR). She received her law degree from the National University of Advanced Legal Studies in Kochi. She has worked as a UPSC exam teacher and mentor for several coaching schools in Kerala.

Her scholarly interests include legal and urban governance, as well as concerns of livelihood. She won the 2022 Think Tank Shark Tank Award by Atlas Network USA. She spoke on the topic “Economic rights of women in Asia” at the Asia Liberty Forum 2022 in Manila, Philippines, and the Liberty Forum 2022 in New York. She has also interned with the Kerala State Information Commission, ACTIONAID India, Ceat Tyres Ltd, Biocon Pharma Ltd, Khaitan and Co Law Firm, among others.

Watch Now