Context: The fiscal conservatism of the finance ministry means growth revival will take longer, the primary recovery phase should include immediate relief to the migrant, health, and agriculture sector.
Critique of steps taken by the government:
Low direct spending:
Direct fiscal stimulus: just 10% of the package, amounting to as low as 1 % of GDP.
Drastic fall in demand is felt in household disposable incomes of migrants and casual workers.
Irrelevant to the context: liberalizing foreign direct investment in defense production, easier private participation in the space sector is not the solution to immediate problems.
No sharp distinction between managing the epidemic and economic revival:
Excessive focus on the economic revival has lost focus over building better public health management.
Low spending on health:
Budgeted public spending on health was just 1.17% of GDP in 2016-17 (National Health Profile 2019)
India’s public expenditure on health is lower than the average expenditure by countries clubbed among the “poorest”.
Strained delivery of public health services: due to lack of medical personnel and inadequate accountability for delivery.
Way Forward:
Look for synergies: between epidemic management and economic and social recovery.
Primary focus: on the strengthening of healthcare and measures to provide relief and rehabilitation to migrant workers.
In Healthcare:
Aggressive testing: as done in Dharavi which will do well to control the pandemic.
Address medical personnel shortage: using mobile medical facilities, telemedicine, and better training for local health workers. Provide incentives to them for good work.
Address the problems of migrants (as suggested by National Institute for Advanced Studies)
Hostel for circular migrants.
Assured access to public health and public distribution despite lack of domicile proof.
Low-cost train transport.
Flexible training and talent sourcing.
Better rural-urban employment information networks.