Bridging the PC-MHA divide on Aadhaar

The Planning Commission (PC) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) are slugging it out on who should run the prestigious unique identification number project. The decision will be made this week.

Apart from the turf-battles that are commonplace in government, the debate is also one about the fundamental objective of such identity markers. The PC sees Aadhaar as providing a platform to more effectively deliver welfare benefits and improve governance in general. The MHA sees the biometric identity cards as a marker to identify citizens and track immigrants for national security considerations.

Both are obviously divergent objectives. But the country needs both. In simple terms, the debate is superfluous since it should not be a debate about one of them but should be about both. Fortunately, a critical analysis of the objectives of both sides reveals that the differences may not be irreconcilable.

Stripped off all the rhetoric, there are two fundamental issues at the heart of the present controversy. First, MHA questions the rigour associated with the data being collected by UIDAI. Second, it also raises questions about who should control this data and the terms governing its sharing and use.

All this can in turn be reduced to four basic questions. Who should be the enrolment agency? What should be the rigour of data capture process? Who should manage the data? What should be the protocols that define the use of the collected data?

Evidence so far regarding the enrolment process appears to point towards the UIDAI's model of decentralized enrolment, through state-level registrars, being more effective than the RGI’s centralized National Population Register (NPR) model. If any proof of this were needed, one only needs to look at the progress of enrolment in the respective states - 8 million enrolments in the NPR to UIDAI’s 100 million.

The MHA is right to be concerned about the rigour of the enrolment process. But that does not mean that the process should be so rigorous, with the type of multi-step screening now mandated, as to virtually ensure that the enrolment will take years and maybe even decades. The slow progress of NPR enrolments is itself an indicator of the difficulty of pushing ahead with this enrolment strategy. However, it is possible to do a multi-track enrolment whereby the data collected by the Registrars can be topped up with a more rigorous re-validation so as to meet the NPR requirements.

In any case, as the NPR enrolments gather momentum, more invasive MHA enrolment processes will raise concerns about privacy and are bound raise bigger controversies and legal challenges. It is possible to continuously, over a ten year period, build-up the data rigour, through a phased-out manner of validation and rigour enhancement.

Organizationally and in terms of professional competence, there can be little doubt that the UIDAI is better positioned than the Registrar General of India (RGI) in managing the technology platform and database. In any case, given that most of the hardware infrastructure is already in place or its procurement is in progress under the control of the UIDAI, it is only appropriate that it continue and complete the process.

A workable solution to the whole project may be for the UIDAI to manage the technical issue of database management and the MHA to govern the terms of use based on defined protocols. These protocols should be use-specific, and the MHA should have the prerogative, in consultation with all stakeholder departments, to define them. The UIDAI could then administer the process of database sharing with different user departments, based on the protocols defined by the MHA.

This four-pronged approach would enable a reconciliation of the apparently contradictory aims of the two wings of the government. All this should be brought under a legislative framework and should be defined in the Parliamentary Bill that would give statutory basis to the entire process.

The Aadhaar number has benefits that go much beyond its immediate utility by way of enabling user departments to eliminate fraud arising from duplicate, ghost, and impersonation of beneficiaries. The more long-term and functionally high-value utility of the Aadhaar number will come from linking up multiple department databases using the Aadhaar number. Smart data analytics can help reveal inconsistencies within each database and help minimize and even eliminate many categories of inclusion and exclusion errors. It will not only ensure that ineligible beneficiaries are screened out, but also prevent eligible beneficiaries from being excluded.

The massive amounts saved from the elimination of these inclusion errors can be used to improve the quality of service delivery and in other public infrastructure investments. Aadhaar holds equally impressive potential benefits for the private sector. A secure and reliable Aadhaar database and Aadhaar-linked bank accounts will help reduce business transaction and contract costs in many sectors.

There are certain very valid data protection and privacy concerns associated with the Aadhaar project. For a start, it is important to immediately bring the Aadhaar project under a statutory mandate and formulate an enabling policy framework that governs the terms of its use. Adequate care can be taken to ensure that privacy concerns are addressed and only the basic data is made shareable across departments. As already indicated, there should be clear protocols and rules governing the sharing of information across departments.

However, none of this can detract from the undeniable benefits associated with the Aadhaar project. The dangers and concerns are far outweighed by the substantial benefits in improving governance.

Power sector reforms - farm power and tariff revision

The Business Standard reports that the Union Power Ministry have advised State Governments to transfer the massive losses, estimated at Rs 1.06 lakh Cr at end of 2009-10, off the balance sheets of state distribution utilities. It has also advised that states take action to ensure no further cash losses.



If the bailouts or restructurings happen, it will be the second time in almost a decade that state distribution utilities have received such help. At the turn of the century, as part of the first flush of reforms in electricity sector across the country, many state electricity boards were bailed with a Rs 41,400 Cr package. State governments assumed the debts and issued long-term bonds.

Like with the earlier bailout, the present need for bailout appears to have been triggered by similar reasons - the near inevitability of widespread defaults to central generating utilities by state and private sector distribution utilities. This is a clear sign that very little appears to have changed with the sector except in processes and formalities.

In fact, for all the structural reforms that have been enacted in the sector over the past decade, central and state governments have refrained from addressing the twin-elephants in the room - limiting free power for agriculture and regular increases in power tariffs. Unbundling, private sector participation in generation, liberalization of regulatory restrictions in transmission and distribution, and operational improvements like loss reduction, can only get you to the starting line.

Any earnest and meaningful effort to reform the sector has to place farm sector reforms and periodic tariff revision at its center. There is nothing secret nor mysterious about this. Any trading enterprise can survive only if its cost of purchase and service delivery matches its price of delivery. In simple terms, the power procurement cost plus the transmission and distribution cost have to match the aggregate tariffs.

In fact, its importance for the long term health of the sector itself cannot be over-emphasized. The problems faced by privatized distribution utilities in Delhi, who too have massive pending dues with generators, is a reflection of the magnitude of the problems. If the present trends are allowed to continue, it will adversely affect the prospects of private sector generation too. Unlike state generation utilities, private generators will not be able to manage their operations without regular payments on their power sales.

In many respects, the current sorry state of affairs is a serious indictment of the state and central power sector regulators. It is also a classic case of how easily important reforms can be subverted and given lip-service in implementation. It also drives attention to the important issue of tariff revision and the need for public conditioning to accept such revisions.

1. The Electricity Act 2003 and the various state regulatory acts clearly mandates that utilities should not bear state subsidies and state governments should transfer upfront (and not reimburse) the subsidy amounts to utilities for all subsidies being implemented by them. The regulators are supposed to safeguard the interests of the regulated utilities through the annual tariff revision filings. They are mandated to fix tariffs in a manner that reflects utilities' cost of power procurement, a reasonable level of operational efficiency improvements (read loss reduction), and required capital and operational expenditures.

But regulators across states have made a mockery of this, accommodating the interests of their paymasters, the state governments, at the expense of the utilities they were statutorily mandated to protect. Tariff filings in most states have been reduced to a charade, an academic exercise, and most often unprofessional at that, that has no relevance to realities in the field. Regulators, barring a few occasions, have failed to exercise their due powers and force states to bite the bullet on tariff and farm power related issues.

2. The policies of state governments since the reforms were initiated is a classic example of how easy it is to subvert well-intentioned and critical reforms. States have not raised tariffs on domestic consumers for many years now. Assuming inflation and the general increase in cost of procurement, the real subsidy has increased massively. Free power to farmers has remained a holy cow. Even the issue of mere metering of agriculture services raises unbelievable amount of passions.

Even with the latest crisis facing utilities, and despite being fiscally constrained, state governments are unlikely to take any meaningful steps to address this issue on a sustainable basis. It will require commitment at the highest levels to stand even a reasonable chance with pushing through such reforms.

3. Despite nearly two decades of liberalization, the one area where public debate, both in the political realm and in popular media, has remained entrapped in the mindset of the bygone era is that relating to cost-recovery and tariff revision. We cannot shy away for too long from the inevitable fact that consumers have to pay the full cost of any service consumed by them.

Public and political opinion needs to be conditioned into accepting the reality that there are no free lunches. Apparent free lunches are unsustainable and cause serious indigestion down the line. Reforms are not just cheap talk. For any meaningful reforms in sectors like utility and municipal services, important structural reforms have to complement with cost-recovery in service delivery. In simple terms, the culture of free or subsidized delivery has to end. At best, cost-recovery can be ensured in the aggregate through some form of cross-subsidization.

There can be a silver-lining to the crisis. If utilities are to be bailed out, it is a great opportunity for all stakeholders - regulators, state and central governments - come together and agree on some minimum steps with reforming farm power and tariff revision. This blog has always talked about scalable and practical steps in public policy reforms. However, the time may have come to stretch the definition of practicability given the serious magnitude of crisis facing power sector in India. I can think of three such minimal set of steps

1. All agriculture services should be metered. Leave alone bringing in efficiency and accountability in farm power consumption, this is an absolute essential requirement for many upstream reforms. For example, current estimates of distribution losses are badly flawed in the absence of any reliable estimate of agriculture consumption. It is common practice for utilities and regulators to use this as a sinkhole to doctor various operational efficiency and tariff figures that suit their respective agendas.

2. There is scope of considerable reforms with the terms of free farm power supply. To start with, free power supply should be restricted to only certain types of farmers, with the restriction being confined to easily enforceable or detectable parameters or proxy parameters. As I have blogged earlier, governments should move over to a system of fixed monthly units for agriculture consumption, to be reimbursed into the farmers accounts when they pay their monthly farm and domestic supply bills. Its benefits are manifold and the availability of Aadhaar, atleast in certain areas, makes the logistics simpler.

3. Periodic tariff revision, for all categories of consumers, must be made mandatory. In fact, even a simple, rule of thumb increase based on inflation or some other fixed parameter, will be one of the biggest boost for the sector. Just as was done to encourage unbundling of state utilities in the first generation of reforms, state governments should be directed to enter into MoUs or agreements with their utilities or mandate rules that define the terms for periodic tariff revisions. A mandatory and automatic requirement to periodically revise tariffs, agreed between all states and the centre can overcome, atleast partially, the political and collective action problems that accompany such hard reforms.

Mathew Effect in Poverty

The experience from Great Recession has once again conclusively shown that as the economy weakens, the under-privileged and disadvantaged are the most vulnerable. It is doubly ironic that these people are suffering in a recession caused by those at the top of the social and income ladder, most of whom have been spared the worst and many are even prospering. Clearly, the poor are paying for the sins of somebody else!

Consider these three graphics from the impact of the Great Recession on the American society. People with a four-year degree — who have an unemployment rate of just 4.3 percent — are barely experiencing an economic downturn. It should come as no surprise that not only were the least educated most vulnerable during the plunge into recession but also the least successful during the recovery. In fact, those with the best education levels enjoyed an increase in employment rate during the recession.



Among all industries, those with lower than high school education performed much worse than those at the higher end.



This graphic captures the magnitude of the disparity



A more rational analysis would explain this irony as the natural order of things in a modern economy. Not only are those at the lower end of income ladder more vulnerable to recessions and slowdowns, they are also among the least likely to benefit from any booms or upturns.

For a start, those at the lower end of the income ladder obviously do not have the wealth to cushion them from any dips in their incomes, just as those at the other end can draw down from their pots. But more critically, the dynamics of modern economies - education-premiums, skill-bias etc - militates against those initially disadvantaged or under-privileged. A form of Mathew Effect - "For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away" - is a distinguishing characteristic.

Therefore, as economies globalize, the case for a strong, universal, and dynamic social safety net becomes ever more relevant. People are more exposed, often directly, to global economic forces, many of which may adversely affect their livelihoods and push them into poverty or deepen their existing poverty-stricken condition. Further, unlike earlier times when economic mobility was mostly upwards and at a slower pace, such mobility is becoming increasingly rapid and also involves two-way movements.

In the circumstances, if economies are to cushion their vulnerable sections of population to the vagaries of these global economic forces, a social safety net should be a priority. This comfort is also necessary to increase the political acceptability of policies that involve trade liberalization and making labour markets more liberal and flexible.

The dynamic nature of these changes in income status also means that increasingly social safety entitlement programs should have an automatic entry and exit provisions. Those who suddenly fall into poverty (by say, an easily identifiable event like job loss or migration back into his village etc) should be able to avail of the social safety benefits just as those who experience an increase in incomes should drop-off. This automaticity, like with unemployment benefits in the US, will minimize the role of governments, with all its political dimensions, and make these programs more efficient and less distortionary.

At some time, when Aadhhar becomes more universal, and integrated national databases are available, it may be possible to have such dynamic poverty programs in India too. For example, those who get a government job could be declared ineligible for food rations with immediate effect. This will address one of the current biggest problem with entitlement programs in India - absence of sunset clauses.

The price volatility problem with cash transfers

I have blogged earlier that price volatility, especially with food grains, is the most difficult challenge with cash transfers. One of the strategies to overcome this is to provide a large enough subsidy, inclusive of a volatility buffer, so that even if price increases, the buffer will cover for the increase. The nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) for non-urea fertilizers under implementation since April 2010 uses this strategy to cover for price volatility.

It is therefore instructive to examine the experience with NBS in fertilizers. Under this model, fertilizers are sold to farmers at its decontrolled MRP (minus the subsidy) and the subsidy amount paid separately to the fertilizer companies. The nutrient-wise fertilizer subsidy is fixed once a year, based on its market and import prices, and with a reasonable buffer to cushion the producers against price fluctuations over the year.

What has been the progress report with this subsidy regime in operation for more than a year now? A recent report in Businessline highlights the sharp volatility in the prices of fertilizers, as reflected in the manner in which the subsidy fixed for 2011-12 (operational from April 1, 2011) was sharply revised between November 2010 (when it was originally fixed) and March 2011 (when the subsidy amount was frozen). It now appears that even this may have to be revised.

Recent imports of DAP have been for $612 per tonne (or Rs 27,540 per tonne), which with duties, freight and other charges will retail at about Rs 30,735 per tonne. Against this, the MRP of DAP is currently at Rs 10,750 a tonne and the NBS payable from April 1, 2011 is Rs 18,474 (fixed assuming a landed import price of $580 a tonne), thereby grossing the company Rs 29,224 for every tonne of DAP. This deficit of more than Rs 1500 a tonne or Rs 75 a bag will either have to be covered through an increase in subsidy or passed on to the farmer.

Given important state elections coming up, it is almost inevitable that despite the original decision to fix the subsidy once a year, the subsidy rates will be revised again. Similarly, even on MoP, where global suppliers are apparently pushing for a landed price of $420 a tonne (which is more than the current reference rate of $390 a tonne), a subsidy revision looks certain.

Further, there is also the problem of market expectations that get formed by the subsidy price announcements. Since India is one of the largest fertilizer importers, its procurement decisions and prices signals get embedded into the global market prices. Though the subsidy rates announced includes a volatility buffer, the market prices naturally get anchored at the upper end. As the Businessline report says,

"For 2010-11, the Centre had fixed the NBS rates on nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potash (K) and sulphur (S) with reference to corresponding import prices of $310 a tonne on urea, $ 500 on DAP, $370 on muriate of potash (MoP) and 190 a tonne on sulphur. For 2011-12, the Centre – in a bid to talk down world prices – initially, on November 19, pegged these reference prices lower at $280, $450, $350 and $125 a tonne. But with global prices showing no signs of easing, the Centre, on March 9, announced new NBS rates for 2011-12 based on higher landed prices of $350 for urea, $580 for DAP, $390 for MoP and $180 for sulphur."

The Businessline report also quotes industry sources who claim that the government's decision to tinker with the DAP reference price has contributed to the steep increase in its import price in recent months. Also, the NBS regime has had no effect on lowering the subsidy burden. In fact, subsidy burden is also projected to go up by Rs 30,000 Cr to Rs 82, 245 Cr, up from the budgeted provision of Rs 52,837 Cr for 2010-11.

The experience of fertilizer highlights the difficulty of managing price volatility and also ensuring access to fertilizers (or food grains) at affordable prices. The much greater price volatility and political sensitivity associated with food grains means that any buffer will have to be much larger. Far from lowering it, the food subsidy outgo will therefore increase.

Admittedly, with fertilizers, given the reasonably integrated national market, it may be possible to calibrate subsidy to a price index. However, this approach cannot work with food grains whose prices vary so widely across the country at any point in time, that it is impossible to capture it in one index with any reasonable degree of reliability. So what is the way forward? More food for thought!

Who are the eligible beneficiaries?

In my previous post, I had drawn attention to the debate about whether the Aadhaar identity would help more effective targeting of welfare beneficiaries. I had argued that Aadhar-based identification would not help screen out those beneficiaries who do not meet the eligibility requirements.

In this context, one of the comments pointed to the psychological deterrent effect of any Aadhaar-based identity in screening out the ineligible. This works on the presumption that since Aadhaar localizes the identity and makes it easy to trace individuals, the possibility of being noticed when drawing benefits would deter the ineligible from accessing those benefits.

I am not sure about the effectiveness of such deterrent for two reasons. First, the margins between the eligible and ineligible are never cut-and-dry. For example, it is impossible to accurately avoid inclusion errors (ineligible getting included) when identifying people below or above the poverty line based on the standard income parameter. What should be the cut-off income? How do we quantify that income? Second, given the widespread poverty in the country, the numbers of people who straddle the blurred boundaries of eligibility are considerable.

In other words, a large number of people face the ambiguity about whether they are eligible or not to receive certain welfare benefits. In the circumstances, the deterrent effect gets considerably diluted. Where is the need to fear when many of your neighbours belong to the same category? In any case, given the difficulty with income quantification, how can anybody establish that you are not income poor (especially when the major share of incomes of those under scrutiny generally comes from the informal sector)?

This challenge will remain with or without Aadhaar and raises the question of what is the most appropriate method to identify welfare beneficiaries. In this context, I am reminded of George Akerlof's famous paper that advocates the use of "tagging" - which tags (identifies) people and then makes specific transfers (or concessions) to them - in taxation. Tagging eliminates the ambiguity arising from eligibility parameters (like income) and enables easier differentiation of the eligible from the ineligible.

What are the most effective tags to identify poor people eligible to receive welfare benefits? The commonest tags are height, weight, looks, gender, age, educational qualifications etc. These are all, for obvious reasons, unsuited for identification of the income poor.

Among the more effective likely tags could be the nature and/or size of ones house. For example, a person living in a temporary or semi-permamnent house could be treated as income poor. Alternatively, the carpet area of the house, discounting for locations, could be used as tags for income levels. Either way, it becomes possible to verify and mark out a person who claims benefits despite failing the eligibility norm. Though administration of house-type based tags too raises concerns, it does look a more promising approach to screen beneficiaries than the current practice of identification based on incomes.

It is possible there are more effective tags, especially for certain subsidized products. In any case, irrespective of whether Aadhaar is used or not, the problem of beneficiary identification, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, has to be satisfactorily resolved.

Pitfalls in cash transfer implementation

The decision by the Union Government to replace the current subsidy regime in fertilizers, cooking gas and kerosene with a system of cash transfers in a phased manner has triggered off an intense debate about cash transfers. This post will summarize the most relevant and common objections to cash transfers and critically examine each of them.

1. It does not resolve the targeting problem

The biggest criticism of Aadhaar is that it leaves the critical issue of beneficiary identification, or targeting, unresolved. The Aadhaar identification merely validates whether the particular individual has come to receive his welfare benefit. It does not say anything about whether the individual is, in the first place, eligible to receive the benefit itself. The means testing of the beneficiary for his or her eligibility is essentially an administrative process.

There are four possible sources of leakages in any welfare program – beneficiary impersonation, ghost, duplicate, and ineligible beneficiaries. Aadhaar-based identification can easily eliminate the first three possibilities. It ensures that benefits are transferred only to the registered beneficiaries. However, ineligible beneficiaries cannot be immediately addressed with Aadhaar. The concern about failure to ensure targeting is therefore only partially correct.

Aadhaar-linked processes are a definite and significant improvement on the prevailing system of beneficiary identification and benefit disbursement. Its effectiveness will improve incrementally as Aadhaar is adopted by a critical mass of user departments so that databases can be shared to screen out the ineligible. In any case, Aadhaar cannot be a substitute for the administrative failure in keeping the beneficiary selection process honest.

It also provides governments an excellent second-best tool to effectively target benefits on petroleum products like cooking gas and fertilizers that are currently universally subsidized. Any such change in regime will be a qualitative and substantial improvement on the current universal subsidy regime.

2. Cash transfers cannot factor in price volatility

The most serious concern about cash transfers, one that deserves the strongest consideration, is on the issue of price volatility. Critics point to the possibility of sharp and sudden price fluctuations, especially for food grains, and argue that this would adversely affect the consumer’s purchasing power. They argue that unless subsidy amounts are calibrated real-time to in response to local market price, a virtually impossible task given the diverse and fragmented nature of rural markets, the cash transfers will fail to achieve its objective.

It is undeniable that prices of commodities, especially food-grains, fluctuate sharply across regions (even within districts, between the head quarters and rural interiors) and over even small time-periods. I have blogged about this here and here. To the extent that the ultimate objective is food or fuel security, or making available these commodities at affordable prices, price volatility poses serious problems.

The new nutrient-based fertilizer subsidy regime overcomes the problem of price volatility by providing a large enough subsidy to act as a buffer against reasonably large manufacturing cost increases. The subsidy transferred to the manufacturers, which is fixed once a year, is deliberately kept high so as to discourage manufacturers from indulging in any market manipulation. It is also hoped that with this subsidy, even if costs increase, the subsidy will cover the increased costs and keep fertilizer prices affordable. However, it has to be admitted that this approach may not be practical for products like food grains and other products.

In the circumstances, at least in the initial phases, it may be more appropriate if cash transfers for products like food grains are restricted to areas where the volatility is least. Urban markets experience less price volatility and they are also more closely integrated into each other. Therefore, an arrangement where the subsidy amount is indexed to the relevant inflation measure is likely to address most of the concerns on price volatility. It has to be admitted that this strategy does not address local price shocks and sudden spikes which cannot be accurately captured on a pan-Indian inflation index.

3. The cash transferred will be frittered away on wasteful expenditures

One of the long-held opposition to cash transfers revolves around the premise that recipients are likely to fritter away their cash on wasteful expenditures. This is all the more so in rural areas, where men are more likely to manage household finances. The widespread self-control problems that bedevil human beings, as highlighted by research in behavioral psychology, adds credence to this claim.

Consider the case of a beneficiary who receives cash transfers on fertilizers and cooking gas into his account, besides NREGA wages and other welfare transfers. There is the possibility that these multiple and often lumpy inflows into a single account would be diverted for other purposes, especially on wasteful expenditures, thereby defeating the purpose of such transfers.

Such concerns can be effectively addressed through vouchers, smart cards, and structured savings bank accounts. The retailers can be reimbursed their subsidy on production of the vouchers for the subsidized product received from the beneficiaries. Debit cards with purchases restricted to only the prescribed commodities can also be used to administer cash transfers. Transfers to the account of the woman family member can also help address such concerns to some extent.

Finally, there are multi-tier savings bank accounts. Insights from recent research in behavioral economics show that use-directed sub-accounts within the main account, designed to take into consideration people’s "mental accounting choices", may be more effective at optimal management of multiple inflows. Accordingly, savings accounts, with say, food or fertilizer sub-accounts, can combat people’s behavioral urges to spend their cash transfer incomes on other expenditures.

In any case, there are doubts on the assumption itself. A study of unconditional cash transfer schemes in 15 Eastern and Southern African countries by S Devereux, J Marshall, J MacAskill and L Pelham indicates that the fungibility of cash transfers does not necessarily undermine the intended outcomes. They also found that recipients used the freedom of choice provided by unconditional cash transfers in a wide range of ways that directly or indirectly benefited children, from purchase of food, groceries, health and education services to investments in farming or small enterprise.

4. It does not address the issue of consumer choice

Another serious objection comes from those pointing to the limited consumer choice in most Indian markets. Since cash transfers are meaningful only when citizens have choice, what use is this cash when people have little or no choice with schools or hospitals? It is a reality that many parts of the country and millions of people have no access to hospital facilities. Further, such presentation of choices, far from creating competition among service provides, only adds to the rent-seeking opportunities. It amplifies the power of the entrenched sub-optimal interests.

Similarly, in most parts of rural India there are typically just one or two retailers for any product. The resultant lack of competition renders any claims of choice disingenuous. If the exclusive government outlets, say ration shops, are closed down, the possibility of price gouging (atleast on certain occasions) by the local kirana shop owner cannot be ruled out.

This concern loses its relevance outside the rural context. Even the smaller cities offer enough choice with retailers, schools and hospitals. Urban residents, who enjoy such choices, can therefore benefit from cash transfers. In any case, given the widespread prevalence of predatory practices like hoarding among retailers even in the smaller towns, such policies will have to be complemented with strong administrative actions to curb these practices.

5. It is a smokescreen to roll-back Government

The strongest critics from the left view a "roll-back the government" agenda behind the cash transfer movement. They see cash transfers as the first step in a systematic campaign to divert attention from more fundamental issues. They express the fear that the focus on cash transfers would slowly displace critical basic welfare issues like investments in primary education and health care, food and fuel security, and so on.

They portray cash transfers as a convenient excuse for governments to abdicate on their responsibilities, "We have done our side of the bargain. We provided you cash, now you go and buy whatever you want". Governments, they argue, will transfer cash to students, patients, and farmers, and leave investments in schools, hospitals, and irrigation to the vagaries of market forces. Similarly, cash transfer in place of food grains, run the risk of seriously imperiling food security. Such ideological arguments are never easy to refute. It may be more effective to tackle them on similar ideological grounds, though its success is not assured.

In conclusion, the concerns of price volatility and choice are not easily refuted. They also remain formidable obstacles to widespread adoption of cash transfers. However, urban markets, which are less susceptible to random and local price shocks and may offer adequate choice, are best placed to receive cash transfers.

Accordingly, it is preferable that the first phase of cash transfers be implemented in towns and cities and for products with less price volatility and choice problems. Food grains distributed through PDS are vulnerable to sharp price fluctuations. The concerns of food security raised by skeptics are not easily refutable. Besides, any failures arising from cash transfers in food grains could become a rallying point for opponents calling for aborting the cash transfer scheme. Cooking gas and fertilizers, and less so kerosene, with their centralized distribution network, are less vulnerable to these concerns.

It is undeniable that urban areas are more suited for cash transfers in all these products. However, this dual subsidy regime, wherein city residents get cash transfers whereas villagers continue to receive subsidies through the conventional channels, may generate its set of problems.

This will be all the more so for food grains and kerosene, and especially during periods of price volatility. In this context, it is important that subsidy benefits are disbursed to consumers in all areas through an Aadhaar-linked system, irrespective of whether they receive cash or not.