The Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana appears to be strengthening women’s savings and participation in household financial decisions, but a study commissioned by the National Commission for Women shows a much weaker effect on their ability to generate independent income. The finding exposes a central limitation of monthly cash assistance: access to money does not automatically translate into control over money or greater economic capacity.
The study, titled Assessing the Role of Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana in Promoting Financial Inclusion Among Women in Maharashtra, was conducted by Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University with financial assistance from the NCW. The commission has given final approval to the report. It surveyed 408 beneficiaries across six districts, covering Western Maharashtra, Marathwada and Vidarbha, with equal representation from rural and urban areas.
Its results show that the scheme is producing meaningful changes in some dimensions of financial participation. Overall, 55.4% of surveyed women recorded high financial inclusion, while 39.7% had moderate inclusion and 4.9% had low inclusion. But the aggregate figure conceals a sharp difference between saving, financial empowerment and the actual use of formal financial services.
A total of 71.8% of respondents recorded high saving behaviour, and 65.7% reported high financial empowerment. Only 33.6%, however, reported high usage of financial services. This gap matters because financial inclusion is not only about receiving a government transfer or holding a bank account. It also involves the ability to independently use banking channels, access financial services and decide how money is deployed.
The study found that women’s independent use of digital banking, ATM and debit cards and money transfer facilities remained limited. In other words, the scheme appears to be improving the presence of money within households faster than it is improving women’s practical command over the financial infrastructure through which that money moves.
The monthly assistance is Rs 1,500. Of this amount, beneficiaries reported spending an average of Rs 518.68 on household expenses, Rs 372.68 on savings, Rs 178.59 on education and Rs 176.83 on healthcare. Only Rs 44.06 was directed towards income-generating activities. A further Rs 18.50 went towards loan or EMI repayments and Rs 15.99 towards gold or jewellery.
The allocation is significant because it shows how the benefit is being absorbed into everyday household needs. The largest reported use was household expenditure, followed by savings. Education and healthcare also accounted for substantial portions. These uses indicate that the transfer can help households manage immediate costs and build some financial reserves, but they also leave relatively little available for starting or expanding an income-generating activity.
The average allocation of Rs 44.06 to income generation is less than 3% of the monthly assistance. The study does not establish why beneficiaries are directing so little towards this purpose, and it does not claim that the scheme was designed as an enterprise-financing programme. But the pattern clearly distinguishes income support from livelihood creation. A cash transfer can ease financial pressure without providing the skills, assets, credit, market access or institutional support needed to produce independent earnings.
That distinction is particularly important in the context of the debate surrounding welfare transfers. NCW chairperson Vijaya Rahatkar said the research was commissioned to assess the actual impact of schemes providing monthly financial assistance to women, amid discussion about freebies and the fiscal pressure created by such programmes. She said one of the most important findings was that women’s participation in family and financial decision-making had increased significantly.
The study therefore provides a more layered picture than either a simple success claim or a dismissal of cash assistance. The scheme is associated with stronger saving behaviour and greater participation in household financial decisions. At the same time, the evidence does not show a comparable improvement in women’s independent earning capacity or their use of formal financial tools.
This is the institutional question at the centre of the findings: what happens after a benefit reaches a woman’s bank account? A transfer system can make payments more direct and visible, but the social and administrative conditions governing its use remain outside the payment mechanism. Household responsibilities, limited digital familiarity and restricted access to financial services can all affect whether the beneficiary exercises independent control over the money. The supplied study records the resulting gap but does not measure each cause separately.
The regional variation adds another layer. Western Maharashtra had the highest proportion of beneficiaries with high financial inclusion, at 69.9%. The corresponding shares were 50% in Marathwada and 46.3% in Vidarbha. These differences suggest that the effects of a common state-level scheme are shaped by regional conditions. The report, as described in the supplied material, does not establish whether the variation is driven by differences in banking access, digital connectivity, local livelihoods, education, household structures or implementation practices.
The rural-urban split in the sample is also relevant. Since the survey included equal representation from rural and urban areas, its findings are not limited to one settlement type. Yet the available account does not provide separate rural and urban results. That prevents a more precise assessment of whether the financial-services gap is concentrated in rural communities, visible equally in cities, or linked to factors that cut across the rural-urban divide.
For urban policy, the findings matter because financial inclusion is closely tied to how households interact with the city’s formal systems. Bank branches, digital payment networks, identity-linked benefit delivery and access to institutional credit all shape a beneficiary’s ability to convert assistance into greater economic agency. The study’s finding that high saving behaviour coexists with low usage of financial services indicates that account ownership or receipt of funds should not be treated as the final measure of inclusion.
It also raises a question about how welfare schemes are evaluated. Counting beneficiaries, transfers or bank accounts can show the reach of a programme, but not necessarily its effect on decision-making, financial autonomy or earning capacity. The NCW-backed assessment attempts to look beyond delivery by measuring several dimensions of participation. Its results show why a single headline indicator can obscure very different outcomes within the same scheme.
The data also complicates the idea that savings automatically lead to investment. Beneficiaries saved an average of Rs 372.68 from the monthly assistance, substantially more than the amount used for income-generating activities. Saving can provide protection against emergencies and help pay for education or healthcare, but the study does not establish that these savings are being converted into productive assets or businesses. Nor does it indicate whether beneficiaries have access to suitable credit or enterprise support.
The evidence supports a clear conclusion, but not an unlimited one. Ladki Bahin appears to be improving women’s saving behaviour and their role in household financial decisions among the surveyed beneficiaries. It has had a much smaller effect on independent income generation, while usage of digital banking and other financial services remains limited. The findings are based on 408 respondents across six districts and should therefore be read as a study of surveyed beneficiaries rather than a complete measurement of every recipient in Maharashtra.
The next question for policymakers is not simply whether money is reaching women. It is whether the institutional systems around that money enable women to use it independently, safely and productively. The NCW and YCMOU study establishes the gap between financial assistance and earning capacity. Further evidence will be needed to determine which interventions can close it and whether future evaluations record not only transfers and savings, but also sustained control over financial resources and income.
