top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 9:59:04 pm

Hidden Economics

The reassuring part of the new Unified Payments Interface (UPI) framework is that customers will apparently not be charged for using UPI. The more interesting part is who, then, pays for keeping one of the world’s most widely used digital-payment systems running. From October 15, a Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) of 0.4 percent will apply to specified person-to-merchant transactions above Rs. 2,000, with a ceiling of Rs. 300 on transactions of Rs. 75,000 or more. Person-to-person payments remain...

Hidden Economics

The reassuring part of the new Unified Payments Interface (UPI) framework is that customers will apparently not be charged for using UPI. The more interesting part is who, then, pays for keeping one of the world’s most widely used digital-payment systems running. From October 15, a Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) of 0.4 percent will apply to specified person-to-merchant transactions above Rs. 2,000, with a ceiling of Rs. 300 on transactions of Rs. 75,000 or more. Person-to-person payments remain free irrespective of the amount, while merchant payments up to Rs. 2,000 remain free. Small merchants receiving up to Rs. 1 lakh a month through UPI QR codes will also continue to enjoy zero MDR. The government says roughly 96 percent of merchant transactions will remain unaffected. So, technically, the customer is exempt. MDR is not a tax collected by the government or NPCI. It is a charge within the payments ecosystem, to be shared among banks, payment-service providers and UPI application providers. But that does not make the economics irrelevant to customers. A merchant who previously accepted a large UPI payment at no direct payment cost will now have to absorb a fee. The government has advised banks to ensure that merchants do not pass the MDR on to customers. The economic reality is less tidy. Businesses ultimately recover costs through their overall pricing. Whether the new charge appears as a visible surcharge, a change in discounts or simply becomes part of the cost of doing business will depend on the merchant and the market. That is why the real beneficiaries of the new framework are not necessarily the customers alone. Payment companies, banks and other participants in the UPI ecosystem acquire a new revenue stream from transactions that were previously free. Paytm, for instance, has said the new MDR will generate additional revenue from merchant transactions that earlier carried no such charge. The money is therefore being redistributed within the payments ecosystem. Small businesses are deliberately insulated, an important distinction in an economy where street vendors and neighbourhood shops have adopted QR payments because they are cheap and frictionless. There is also a larger question. UPI became ubiquitous partly because its basic proposition was brutally simple: instant payments without a visible charge. Introducing MDR for a slice of transactions changes that economic model. The government’s argument is that UPI needs a sustainable financial architecture as its scale grows. But sustainability should not be confused with costlessness. Someone has to finance the infrastructure, security and technology behind a system processing billions of transactions. For now, the customer remains protected. The real test will be whether merchants absorb the cost without quietly transferring it through prices and whether the revenue flowing to banks and fintech companies translates into a stronger, more resilient UPI ecosystem rather than simply a new source of income for its intermediaries.

Algorithms and the Gram Sabha

Writer: Archita Gaur
Archita Gaur
5 hours ago
4 min read

AI can sharpen rural development planning, provided algorithms inform decisions rather than replace local voices.

AI generated image
AI generated image

India’s rural development planning is becoming increasingly data-driven. GIS, satellite imagery, digital databases and emerging AI tools are creating new possibilities for identifying local needs, prioritising public works and improving resource allocation.


But as technology plays a greater role in planning, an important question emerges: can digital systems strengthen rural governance without weakening community participation?


MGNREGA was designed as a decentralised and participatory programme, with Gram Sabhas playing a central role in identifying and prioritising development works. Technology can make this process more informed and efficient, but it should complement, not replace, local knowledge and community decision-making.


Technology-Enabled Planning

Rural development planning has traditionally relied on local consultations, administrative assessments and community knowledge. While these remain essential, digital technologies can strengthen the planning process by providing more accurate and comprehensive information.


GIS mapping, satellite imagery and digital databases can help identify water-stressed areas, degraded land, infrastructure gaps and other local development needs. When used effectively, such tools can enable better prioritisation of works, improve coordination across departments and support more efficient use of public resources.


The growing use of technology therefore presents an important opportunity: to move from fragmented and reactive planning towards more evidence-based rural development. However, the value of these tools will ultimately depend on how they are integrated with local institutions and community participation.


Technology, however, is not neutral. Data-driven systems can identify patterns and suggest priorities, but they cannot fully capture the lived realities, preferences and local knowledge of rural communities.


A water body identified as a priority through satellite imagery, for instance, may not necessarily reflect the most urgent need identified by villagers. Similarly, datasets may overlook seasonal challenges, social inequalities or local factors that are not easily measurable.


The risk, therefore, is that technology could gradually shift rural planning away from communities and towards systems designed elsewhere. Planning may become more efficient on paper, while becoming less responsive to local realities.


The policy challenge is not to choose between technology and participation, but to ensure that algorithms inform decisions rather than make them.


Strengthening Gram Sabhas

The Gram Sabha must remain at the centre of rural development planning. Rather than generating plans that are simply presented to communities for approval, digital tools should be used to support more informed local decision-making.


Technology can make local data easier to access and understand, enabling communities to assess development gaps and evaluate proposed works. GIS maps, resource data and AI-generated recommendations can be presented to Gram Sabhas as inputs for discussion, allowing community members to validate, modify or reject proposed priorities.


This requires a shift from technology-led planning to technology-assisted participation. Digital systems should expand the information available to local communities, while final decisions continue to reflect local needs, knowledge and democratic processes.


India’s approach to technology-enabled rural planning should be guided by a simple principle: technology should inform decisions, not replace decision-makers.


A human-in-the-loop model would position digital tools as decision-support systems rather than automated planning mechanisms. Technology could identify development gaps, map local resources and generate possible interventions, while Gram Sabhas, Panchayats and frontline officials would retain the authority to assess, validate and prioritise these recommendations.


Such a model would combine the strengths of both systems: the scale and analytical capacity of technology with the contextual knowledge and democratic legitimacy of local institutions. Crucially, it would also create mechanisms for communities to question, modify or reject technology-generated recommendations.


The objective should not be algorithmic efficiency alone, but better decisions that are both evidence-based and locally legitimate.


To ensure that technology strengthens rather than sidelines participatory governance, India should consider five key principles.


The Gram Sabha should remain at the centre of planning. Technology-generated recommendations should be treated as inputs for discussion, with communities retaining the authority to validate and prioritise development works.


Digital systems should be explainable. Local governments and communities should be able to understand how recommendations are generated and why certain works are prioritised.


Meanwhile, local capacity should be strengthened. Panchayat representatives and frontline officials need the skills to interpret and effectively use digital tools and data. Feedback and override mechanisms should be created in tandem. Communities should be able to modify or reject technology-generated recommendations when they do not reflect local realities.


Participation should be measured alongside efficiency. The success of technology-enabled planning should be assessed not only through faster planning or better targeting, but also through the quality of community participation and local decision-making.


Technology has the potential to make rural development planning more informed, efficient and responsive. But its value will depend on whether it strengthens or sidelines the institutions at the heart of decentralised governance.


As India moves towards data-driven planning, the objective should not be to replace community decision-making with algorithmic recommendations. Instead, technology must help communities and local governments make better decisions.


The future of rural governance should therefore not be algorithm versus participation, but a model in which technology and local democracy work together.


(The writer is an economics postgraduate from Jawaharlal Nehru University with research interests in economic policy, trade and global governance. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page