Which one of the following statements in the context of social sector spending in India during 2014–19 (both States and the Union Government together) is true?
- (a)Expenditure on education was 5% of GDP.
- (b)Expenditure on health was 4% of the social services expenditure.
- (c)There was a stagnation in the spending on education as a percent of GDP.
- (d)Health sector spending amounted to 10% of the total expenditure.
Correct — C, There was a stagnation in the spending on education as a percent of GDP. Taking the Centre and the States together, general government spending on education stayed inside a narrow band of roughly 2.8 to 3.1 per cent of GDP right across 2014-15 to 2019-20 — it had been about 3.1 per cent in 2013-14, settled near 2.8 per cent through the middle of the period and edged back to about 2.9 per cent at the end. A share that moves by two or three tenths of a percentage point over six years while the economy grows is the textbook picture of stagnation, and it is why the six per cent of GDP target first set in 1968 and repeated ever since has stayed out of reach. The other three options are all quantitative claims that the same series contradicts, which is what makes this a numbers question rather than an opinion.
- (a)Expenditure on education was 5% of GDP. — Too high by well over half. Education spending by the Centre and States together ran near three per cent of GDP through this period, not five. Even the wider definition used in the National Education Policy of 2020, which counts all public expenditure on education, put the figure at about 4.43 per cent and treated that as far short of the six per cent goal.
- (b)Expenditure on health was 4% of the social services expenditure. — Far too low. Government health spending was about 1.2 to 1.5 per cent of GDP in these years while total social services spending ran around six to six and a half per cent of GDP, so health was roughly a fifth of social services expenditure, not one twenty-fifth of it.
- (d)Health sector spending amounted to 10% of the total expenditure. — Too high. Set against total government expenditure, health at little more than one per cent of GDP works out closer to five per cent than to ten. The option inflates a figure that the same tables keep small.
Social sector spending in India is a combined figure: the States do most of the actual spending on schools and hospitals, so any meaningful number adds Centre and States together and is usually expressed as a share of GDP, which controls for both inflation and growth. The Economic Survey publishes this series each year under social services, with education and health as its two largest heads.
The way into an item like this is to hold two anchors and test each option against them — education near three per cent of GDP and health between one and one and a half per cent, with social services as a whole in the six to seven per cent range. Every wrong option here fails one of those anchors by a wide margin, which is more reliable than trying to recall a specific table. Present-day line: the picture has not changed much since. Public spending on education has continued to hover close to three per cent of GDP against the six per cent target reaffirmed by the National Education Policy in 2020, while government health spending has been pushed up by the National Health Policy target of 2.5 per cent of GDP and by the pandemic years, without yet reaching it.
- General government spending on education stayed in a band of about 2.8 to 3.1 per cent of GDP from 2014-15 to 2019-20.
- Government health spending in the same years was about 1.2 to 1.5 per cent of GDP.
- Total social services expenditure by the Centre and States ran about six to six and a half per cent of GDP.
- The six per cent of GDP target for education dates from the Education Policy of 1968 and was reaffirmed in 1986, in 1992 and by the National Education Policy of 2020.
- The National Education Policy of 2020 records all public education expenditure at around 4.43 per cent of GDP on its wider definition.
- Quoting the education target of six per cent as though it were the achieved figure.
- Mixing the narrower education head of the Survey with the wider all-public-expenditure figure in the education policy.
- Confusing a share of GDP with a share of the budget; the two answers differ by a factor of eight or nine.
As a single true statement to be picked out of four numerical claims, or as a direct question on a target such as six per cent for education or 2.5 per cent for health.
Consider the following statements concerning the National Education Policy, 2020: 1. At least 50 percent of the learners through school and higher education system to get exposure to vocational education by 2025. 2. Secondary schools should collaborate with ITIs, Polytechnics and local industries. 3. Vocational education to be exclusively provided by NGOs. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 2 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer(b) 1 and 2 only
The policy that sits on top of these numbers. The education policy of 2020 restates the six per cent of GDP commitment that the spending series in this item shows was never met, and both questions reward reading the document's own targets closely.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The target of raising public expenditure on education to six per cent of GDP was first recommended by
- (a)the Kothari Commission and the Education Policy of 1968
- (b)the Sarkaria Commission
- (c)the National Knowledge Commission
- (d)the Fourteenth Finance Commission
Answer(a) the Kothari Commission and the Education Policy of 1968 — it was reaffirmed in 1986, in the 1992 review and again by the National Education Policy of 2020.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The National Health Policy, 2017 set a target for public health expenditure of
- (a)1.0 per cent of GDP
- (b)2.5 per cent of GDP
- (c)5.0 per cent of GDP
- (d)6.0 per cent of GDP
Answer(b) 2.5 per cent of GDP — against actual government health spending of roughly 1.2 to 1.5 per cent of GDP in the second half of the 2010s.