Reforming the government delivery system through the Direct Benefit Transfer Scheme is a progressive step, but it has its limitations too. Comment.
Approach · directive: “comment”
What it asks · Weigh DBT's gains for efficiency, transparency and leakage control against exclusion, access and design limits.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Comment: why DBT is a progressive reform — gains in leakage control, transparency and inclusion
- Comment: its limitations — exclusion, access, cash-versus-kind and design gaps
- Suggest how the limitations can be addressed
Open with · Direct Benefit Transfer, begun in 2013 and built on the JAM (Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, Mobile) infrastructure, sends benefits straight to beneficiaries' bank accounts.
Cover
- Gains: fewer ghost and duplicate beneficiaries, less leakage and delay, and lower administrative costs, as in PAHAL for LPG and PM-KISAN.
- Transparency: payments are traceable, middlemen are reduced, and Jan Dhan accounts give women and the poor financial access.
- Exclusion: Aadhaar-authentication failures, seeding mismatches and biometric errors have denied rations and pensions in several States.
- Access gaps: weak banking and network access in remote and tribal areas, low digital literacy, and distance to bank branches and business correspondents.
- Cash versus kind: cash may not keep pace with food prices, the choice of in-kind support is lost, and women may not control the money.
- Design: tenant farmers and landless workers are left out of PM-KISAN, and grievance redress is weak.
- Way forward: alternatives to Aadhaar authentication, hybrid cash-and-kind options, stronger business correspondents, and grievance and privacy safeguards.
Close with · DBT improves targeting and integrity, but it works best as a supplement to strong last-mile systems, not a replacement for them.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2022, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 205 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
Direct Benefit Transfer, begun in 2013 and built on the JAM trinity (Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, Mobile), sends subsidies and benefits straight to beneficiaries' bank accounts in place of layered, discretionary delivery.
A progressive step
- Integrity: removal of ghost and duplicate beneficiaries cut leakage and delay, as in PAHAL for the LPG subsidy and PM-KISAN.
- Transparency: every payment is traceable, middlemen lose their hold and administrative cost falls.
- Inclusion: Jan Dhan accounts gave women and the poor a formal financial identity and a channel for direct relief.
Its limitations
- Exclusion: Aadhaar authentication failures, seeding mismatches and biometric errors have denied rations and pensions in several States.
- Access: weak banking and network coverage in remote and tribal areas, low digital literacy, and long distances to branches and business correspondents.
- Cash versus kind: cash may not keep pace with food prices, the option of in-kind support is lost, and women may not control the money.
- Design: tenant farmers and landless workers fall outside PM-KISAN, and grievance redress is weak.
Way forward
- Alternatives to biometric authentication, a hybrid cash-or-kind choice, stronger business-correspondent networks, and grievance and data-privacy safeguards.
DBT improves targeting and integrity, but it works best as a supplement to strong last-mile delivery systems, not as their replacement.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.