Splitting a ₹40-crore MSME package between a handloom cluster and a food-processing cluster
The MSME Department has a one-time ₹40 crore package to split between two clusters. Cluster A (Pedana, Krishna district) has 1,200 handloom units, 8,000 workers, average unit turnover ₹18 lakh, 62% of output exported, and a 14% bank NPA rate; its binding constraint is working capital, and the department estimates that ₹1 crore of working-capital support retains about 45 jobs. Cluster B (Anantapur) has 2,500 micro food-processing units, 5,000 workers, average turnover ₹6 lakh, 9% NPA, and no cold chain; ₹1 crore of cold-chain support creates about 18 direct jobs but cuts post-harvest loss from 22% to 7%, raising farmer realisations. The Finance Department has capped administrative overhead at 4% of the package and requires that at least half the money reach units with turnover below ₹25 lakh. A local MLA has written that 80% should go to Cluster A because it earns more foreign exchange, while the district industries centre argues for Cluster B on equity grounds.
1. Recommend a split of the ₹40 crore and state the three criteria you would use to defend it.
Read the worked answer
A defensible split is roughly ₹20 crore to Cluster A, ₹18 crore to Cluster B, and ₹2 crore for common testing, design and market-linkage support, with the 4% overhead cap met by charging administration to the common head.
The criteria should be stated explicitly:
- Marginal jobs per rupee, adjusted for risk. At ₹1 crore per 45 retained jobs, Cluster A costs about ₹2.22 lakh per job; Cluster B costs about ₹5.55 lakh per direct job. On this metric A is far superior.
- Value retained, not just jobs. B's throughput is 2,500 × ₹6 lakh = ₹150 crore; cutting loss by 15 percentage points preserves about ₹22.5 crore of value a year. That benefit is large relative to an ₹18 crore outlay and is not captured by the jobs ratio.
- Compliance with the equity and turnover conditions. B's units are almost all below ₹25 lakh turnover, so B easily satisfies the half-the-money condition; A must be designed as interest subvention or margin money with a ₹25 lakh turnover ceiling so that the condition is met rather than merely asserted.
The split also avoids concentrating 80% of a one-time package in a cluster already carrying 14% NPAs, where support may be absorbed by repayment rather than fresh capacity.
2. Critique the MLA's 80:20 proposal using the data, and say what additional information would change your view.
Read the worked answer
The 80:20 proposal would put ₹32 crore into A and ₹8 crore into B. On the department's own ratios that is about 1,440 retained jobs in A and 144 direct jobs in B. The arithmetic looks strong for A, but the proposal commits three errors:
- It treats export earnings as value added. Handloom export value includes purchased yarn and dye; the cluster's local value addition may be a small fraction of the ₹18 lakh average turnover, so foreign exchange is a weak guide to whether a rupee of support creates local income.
- It ignores risk concentration. With a 14% NPA rate, a large share of ₹32 crore may go to units already stressed. A single demand shock in the export market would then hit both the cluster and the government's recovery.
- It ignores B's loss reduction. The cold-chain benefit accrues to farmers, not only to the 2,500 units, and would be lost under a token ₹8 crore allocation.
What would change my view: evidence that A's support is genuinely additional working capital rather than refinancing; unit-level repayment data showing NPAs concentrated in large units; a measured, not assumed, 22% loss rate in B; and cold-chain utilisation rates from other districts. If A's additionality is proven and B's loss estimate is inflated, I would raise A's share.
3. Design two monitoring indicators and explain why each is better than a simple disbursement target.
Read the worked answer
Indicator 1: verified jobs retained or created, by unit and by sex. Count only workers appearing in EPF or state insurance records for at least three months after disbursement. A disbursement target measures effort, not outcome; it can be met by writing cheques to units that then reduce headcount. A verified jobs indicator forces the department to follow up with units and exposes whether support is additional.
Indicator 2: post-harvest loss measured at three randomly selected mandis in the B cluster, before and after cold-chain commissioning. Sample the same commodities in the same season, with a control mandi outside the programme. A disbursement target cannot distinguish a working cold chain from an installed but unused one. Measured loss also tests the 22%-to-7% assumption that justified the allocation.
Both indicators should have a published baseline and a fixed measurement date. The risk with any single indicator is that it becomes the target: if jobs are counted only at disbursement, units will hire temporarily. Pairing an outcome indicator with a random-sample verification reduces that risk.