By BN Kumar
Mumbai, Jan 24 (.) As India heads into another union Budget cycle, the gap between policy, ambition and measurable delivery is drawing closer scrutiny from economists, investors and policy analysts.
While successive Budgets have projected long-term transformation and robust growth trajectories, questions persist about near- and medium-term outcomes- particularly job creation, household incomes and project execution.
Recent Budgets have consistently leaned on vision-led frameworks. Policymakers have anchored the narrative around multi-decade goals, including India’s aspiration to become a developed economy by 2047. Public capital expenditure has remained the central policy lever, with the expectation that infrastructure-led growth will crowd in private investment and lift productivity.
At the same time, official indicators suggest that structural stress has not fully eased. One data point frequently cited by analysts is the continued reliance on large-scale food support. Nearly 60 per cent of India’s population continues to receive free foodgrains under government welfare schemes, extended for a fifth consecutive year.
While the programme has ensured food security, its prolonged continuation indicates that income recovery and employment growth remain uneven. The last three union Budgets reflect this tension between ambition and outcomes. Budget 2023-24 significantly increased public capital spending, particularly on roads, railways and logistics.
This supported construction activity and supply chains, but consumption growth remained patchy, pointing to pressures on household purchasing power. Budget 2024-25 sought to accelerate manufacturing through production-linked incentive schemes and supply-chain diversification.
While output gains were reported in sectors such as electronics and automobiles, labour-intensive job creation remained limited. Informal employment continued to dominate, suggesting that productivity gains had not translated into broad-based income expansion.
The most recent Budget placed even greater emphasis on long-term vision, positioning ‘Viksit Bharat 2047’ as a central theme. However, it offered limited consolidation of earlier commitments. Public documents provided little clarity on how many announced projects reached commercial operation, how many jobs were created relative to public spending, or how frequently timelines were revised.
This emphasis on intent over outcomes has also characterised India’s investment outreach abroad. At platforms such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, Indian ministers and state leaders routinely announce memoranda of understanding worth trillions of rupees across manufacturing, energy, digital infrastructure and logistics. Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have been among the most active participants, highlighting large investment pipelines.
Such announcements play a signalling role in attracting global attention. Economists note, however, that MoUs are expressions of intent rather than binding commitments. Conversion depends on factors including land availability, financing, regulatory approvals and market conditions.
Publicly available data on conversion rates remains fragmented, with no consolidated, audited accounting of how many MoUs announced at earlier Davos meetings have translated into operational assets or sustained employment. State governments maintain that execution is pursued through domestic investor summits and follow-up mechanisms. There is evidence of progress in some cases.
Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra have hosted major investor conferences and reported land allotments, project groundbreakings and commissioning across manufacturing, pharmaceuticals and energy. Even so, analysts caution that execution reporting remains uneven. Project updates often combine early-stage approvals with fully operational units, complicating assessment of economic impact.
Independent verification of timelines, investment flows and employment outcomes is limited, while stalled or withdrawn projects are rarely highlighted in official summaries. The union Budget, which sets the fiscal and policy framework for the year, has not consistently bridged this gap. Rather than reconciling announcements with outcomes, Budgets have tended to roll forward commitments, reinforcing a policy environment driven more by projections than delivery metrics. Environmental pressures add further complexity.
Rapid urbanisation and infrastructure expansion have intensified stress on land, water and air quality. Flood losses, pollution-linked health costs and climate-related disruptions are increasingly visible economic risks. Global institutions have highlighted these challenges.
IMF First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath has warned that climate risks and environmental degradation can undermine macroeconomic stability, productivity and long-term growth. Rising healthcare expenditure, labour productivity losses and disaster-related fiscal shocks can erode development gains if environmental costs are not integrated into economic planning. Despite this, environmental safeguards are often treated as secondary considerations in investment and Budget narratives.
Wetlands and floodplains continue to face development pressure, while pollution controls are frequently portrayed as trade-offs rather than growth enablers. The economic costs tend to be recognised only after adverse events occur. Restoring credibility will require a shift towards outcome-based governance. Investment announcements- whether at Davos or domestic summits- will need clearer follow-through.
Project conversion rates, timelines and environmental impacts will require transparent disclosure. One proposal gaining attention is a stronger linkage between investment announcements and the Economic Survey that precedes the union Budget. Analysts suggest the Survey should systematically track major commitments, assess execution status and quantify outcomes. Such disclosure, they argue, would strengthen fiscal transparency and public confidence.
India’s growth strategy continues to command broad support. The challenge lies less in ambition than in institutionalising mechanisms that prioritise delivery. Without clearer accountability for timelines and outcomes, the gap between projected transformation and lived economic reality is likely to persist.
(The author is a Mumbai-based business analyst. Views are personal)