Objective Analysis of Unemployment schemes in India

  • Despite the Government devolving power and funds to implement projects, most of the schemes contribute to follow a top-down model
    • This is the Irony with Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY)
      • The government sets financial and physical limits for schemes to be executed by panchayats and determines priorities for funding
      • This, observers say, has led to the creation of mostly non-productive assets such as school boundary walls and panchayat halls.
      • Corruption continues to flourish, though it has shifted from a bureaucrat-contractor nexus to one linking the sarpanch and contractor
  • The government introduced Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Protsahan Yojana(PMRPY) to generate new employment by incentivising employers
    • Under the scheme, the central government provides the entirety of the employers’ contribution towards the Employers Provident Fund, or EPF, scheme—12 percent—for a period of three years for new employees who earn less than Rs 15,000 a month
    • But, at least 40 percent of the eligible employees in the country are still outside this scheme
    • A case study based on a sectoral analysis of the power loom industry in Solapur district of Maharashtra showed that lax implementation of the scheme is one of the major reasons behind its inefficacy
  • The Mudra scheme was launched to provide loans to target Enterprises
    • However, data from public-sector banks shows that loans given under the scheme since 2015—over three crore loans, worth Rs 1.5 lakh crore, were disbursed in 2018 alone—have added to the Non Performing Assets, or NPA crisis
  • The Government in 2015, announced that 40 crore people would be imparted skill training by 2022 under the aegis of Skill India
    • In regards to this, there have been reports of bogus enrolments by private partners who are entitled to 75 percent of government subsidy on the sanctioned cost of Rs 10,000 per candidate
    • Also, the data from Skill India is hardly credible because all these figures are self-reported and there is no authentication process for enrolment and certification.
    • There is no monitoring of the skill centres to see whether the courses are even conducted
  • Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) has been criticised for training lakhs of women in conventional sectors such as weaving, bakery, apparel, and retail, instead of imparting skills that help them enter new job sectors such as construction, electronics, IT services and financial services
    • There is also the lack of support to the handicrafts sector, which could enhance existing skills in an ecological manner in India’s rural areas
  • The following new schemes were to boost employment in India. However, these schemes have not so far yielded the expected results:
    • The main aim of the Make in India programme was to generate employment in the manufacturing sector
      • Stringent land acquisition laws and inflexible labour regulations make it difficult for India to attract investors in the manufacturing sector.
      • Local apparel, footwear, textiles and leather industries did not receive any support from the government in the form of funding.
    • The government aimed to stress on automation through the introduction of Digital India
      • Combined with Demonetisation, the switch to online transactions resulted in the closing down of many local kirana stores that accepted only cash payments
    • Under Startup India, the Government encouraged banks to provide finance to young entrepreneurs to start their own business ventures
      • However, lack of innovation and lack of skilled labour resulted in the shutdown of many new startups
      • It could be suggested that not only did Startup India fail to create more jobs, it may have actually resulted in a lot of individuals losing their jobs.