A well-designed social registry, containing comprehensive household information, can address the ever-changing state of poverty and simultaneously drive critical human development goals.

Should social registries be mixed with cash transfers to women? The answer depends on the policy objectives. But first, what are social registries? These are defined as information systems that support outreach, intake, registration, and determination of potential eligibility for one or more social programmes (Leite et al. 2017). Ideally, social registries should be designed to be dynamic, open, and provide continuous access to registration, typically through on-demand applications with active outreach to vulnerable populations. This matches India’s experiences of poverty, where people transition in and out of poverty (Desai et al., 2025). Dynamic social registries are particularly suited to address the dynamic nature of poverty in India.

The use of social registries is a well-established global practice. According to the World Bank, as of 2024, 62 countries had operationalised these systems. The earliest and most prominent example is Brazil’s social registry database, Cadastro Único, which is closely linked to the country’s landmark cash transfer programme, Bolsa Família.

Closer home, the national e-Shram database functions similarly to a social registry. Several States have also developed their social registries, such as Rajasthan’s Bhamashah programme and Karnataka’s Kutumba initiative.

The e-Shram portal was developed after the pandemic to tackle any future national crisis like Covid-19. Registration was voluntary and unconditional for unorganised workers aged 16-59 years, who were not members of EPFO, ESIC, or NPS. Rajasthan’s Bhamashah scheme, initiated in 2008 and relaunched in 2014, relied on a survey-based method to enrol 50 lakh in its initial phase.

Karnataka’s Kutumba is an Entitlement Management System which is being developed into an Integrated Social Information System, consisting of a social registry, integrated beneficiary management systems, payments platform and a grievance redressal system. Starting 2019, it leveraged the existing Public Distribution System (PDS) database alongside other State and Central government registries, requiring no separate survey. Kutumba also accepts on-demand applications from households and individuals through an online portal. The database aggregates individual attributes (such as name, gender, education, occupation, and disability status) and family attributes (caste, income, land holdings, deprivation status, and Priority Household status under the NFSA). Both the Bhamashah and Kutumba databases are linked with Aadhaar and utilise unique family identifiers. The latest State to adopt this approach is West Bengal, where residents have been asked to submit a range of demographic and economic data, either online or offline, on a voluntary basis.

Why give cash transfers to women?

Cash transfers (UCTs) to women have become immensely popular with States. Setting political economy incentives aside, the literature (like Kotiswaran and Jana 2026) suggests three primary justifications: income support, recognition of unpaid domestic and care work, and the promotion of female agency.

Income Support: It is highly practical to use social registries to identify women who require targeted income support. Social registries in India are family databases and have a range of information on income, assets, land holdings, etc., which can then be used to determine eligibility.

Payments for unpaid domestic & care work and/or improving women’s agency: If cash transfers are distributed to women for these reasons, the transfers should be truly universal rather than targeted. Because the majority of women, regardless of socioeconomic class, perform disproportionate unpaid care work and benefit from enhanced individual agency. Using a social registry to filter eligibility based on household poverty metrics defeats the core purpose of the programme.

Policy alignment in States

States like Maharashtra and West Bengal are currently reforming their cash transfer schemes for women by requiring them to complete the electronic Know Your Customer (e-KYC) verification (Maharashtra) or requiring them to register on the State’s new social registry portal (West Bengal). Essentially, both States are treating cash transfers to women as targeted income support programmes. Consequently, their reliance on social registries is logical and aligned with their policy goals.

States are encouraged to build dynamic social registries. The point is how to build these comprehensive databases. One is the survey-based approach of Rajasthan versus Karnataka’s Kutumba model of using available databases to build one. Given that the latest census is already underway and States themselves have a lot of administrative data, the latter method may be a more cost-effective way of building social registries. Good practices also involve reaching out to the vulnerable population on an ongoing basis. Of course, the data has to be validated and verified. And they have to be dynamic to allow for the dynamic nature of poverty prevailing in India.

Cash transfers, whether universal or targeted, are just one tool for addressing women-related concerns. A well-designed social registry, containing comprehensive household information, can simultaneously deliver targeted income support to women and drive critical human development goals.

While data, technical tools, and proven models are readily available, State governments must align their policy priorities and design dynamic systems which maximise the economic and social returns on their investments.

The writer is a Professor and Co-Director of the Centre for Gender and Macroeconomy at NCAER. Views are personal.