Renaming of flagship welfare schemes is often defended as administrative reform. Analyse its impact on governance outcomes.

In Indian administration, renaming and rebranding welfare programs has become a regular occurrence. Governments defend these adjustments as attempts at rationalisation or refocusing, but their effects on governance results are still uneven.

Positively, rebranding can improve public recall, signify policy reorientation, and match programs with current goals. Additionally, it might assist governments in regaining administrative momentum and reasserting political accountability.

However, administrative discontinuity results from periodic renaming. Frontline employees’ focus is diverted from providing services while they adjust to new policies, portals, and reporting formats. Changes may decrease knowledge and access because beneficiaries, particularly the poor and illiterate, frequently identify schemes with familiarity. Renaming also makes impact assessment more difficult because it breaks up time-series data and result comparisons.

From a governance standpoint, placing too much emphasis on symbolic change runs the risk of politicising welfare and moving the emphasis from results to branding. Coordination between the federal government and the states may be strained by such changes.

Overall, stability, sufficient budget, and administrative capacity promote governance outcomes rather than just symbolic reforms. Renaming ought to support genuine reform rather than replace it.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation

About the Author: Jyoti Verma