Align Jobs Schemes with ELI — A State‑Centre Opportunity I’ve Been Thinking About

Recently I read that Union stakeholders are urging states to align their job schemes with the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) approach. That appeal — to synchronise state programmes with a clear national incentive structure — feels like common sense, but its implications are deep and practical. The call for alignment comes at the same time India is making big bets on industrial self‑reliance, whether that’s “chips or ships” (as the Prime Minister put it) or other manufacturing pushes PM’s Samudra se Samriddhi address. The business case is loud: where the central ELI provides demand‑side incentives for employment creation, states can supply the local scaffolding — land, skilling, regulatory ease — so both pots boil together.

Why alignment matters now

• ELI converts investment into measurable jobs. But states still design many schemes in isolation. When the incentive at the centre rewards a factory for every worker employed, yet a state’s skilling or placement programmes are fragmented, the full value of those incentives is lost.
• National narratives are pushing strategic sectors — maritime, semiconductors, renewables. The PM’s emphasis on building capacity ("chips or ships, we must make them in India") shows the scale of policy ambition FinTech BizNews reporting of PM’s speech. If states align, ELI can accelerate real jobs rather than just headline investments.
• Alignment reduces friction: simpler onboarding of workers, quicker certification recognition, and more predictable wage and social security outcomes for employees. That makes the ELI more attractive to private investors who fear local executional risk.

What good alignment looks like (practical, not theoretical)

• Harmonised targets and data: the Centre sets ELI metrics (jobs created, retention thresholds), states map those metrics against their placement and skilling dashboards so the candidate pipeline is visible and verifiable.
• Port‑adjacent industrial planning: ports are more than cargo gates; they are anchors for shipbuilding, repairs, recycling, and logistics clusters. If a national scheme rewards employment in shipyards, states near ports should ease land allocation, support worker housing, and partner with ITIs for maritime trades. The PM’s maritime push underscores this logic PM’s Samudra se Samriddhi address.
• Sectoral skill stacks: ELI outcomes depend on job readiness. States must align curricula in ITIs, polytechnics and short‑term training with ELI target occupations — welders for shipbuilding, technicians for fabs, service staff for green ports, and so on.
• Regulatory and fiscal complements: where ELI is the carrot, states can reduce the friction (single‑window clearances, special labour facilitation, land‑use clarity) that often delays hiring.
• Reuse and recycling as job generators: port regions can host vehicle and ship scrapping/salvage parks that create local jobs in dismantling, material recovery and secondary processing — an employment‑rich activity tightly linked to ports and manufacturing supply chains.

Lessons from the ground — why this matters beyond policy memos

I’ve watched how industries tied to ports and scrap can either flourish or fade depending on policy alignment. For example, the shipbreaking yard at Alang once supported thousands; recent downturns show how fragile local employment is when demand and policy diverge (see industry reporting and my prior commentary on Alang) Alang faces — my reflections. Similarly, I’ve long argued that lifecycle industries — car scrapping, recycling, and circular steel feedstocks — ought to be part of an integrated plan linking ports, incentives and skills (my earlier posts on car scrapping and tariff policy lay out this case) India offers zero-for-tariffs — my take.

The core idea I want to make explicit — and why my past words matter now

Take a moment to notice that I had brought up related thoughts years ago. I had predicted these outcomes and challenges, and I had even proposed practical solutions at the time. Seeing how things have unfolded, it's striking how relevant those earlier insights remain. That sense of validation isn't just nostalgic; it creates a renewed urgency to revisit those ideas because they clearly hold value in today’s policy moment.

A few immediate, implementable suggestions for states

• Map every state job scheme to ELI categories and publish a simple crosswalk so officers and employers can see where overlap exists.
• Create ‘ELI‑ready’ cohorts in ITIs: modular, competency‑based training aligned to the job roles ELI rewards.
• Design port‑region special facilitation units — a single desk that coordinates land, environmental clearances for shipyards, recycling parks, and associated MSME suppliers.
• Encourage industry partnerships for apprenticeships tied to ELI outcomes; make incentives conditional on apprenticeship completions and retention.
• Track employment outcomes transparently and use dashboards to reconcile central and state reporting — that rebuilds trust with investors.

I say this as someone who has long watched port and recycling value chains — from shipbreaking to vehicle scrapping — and from tourism’s pivot to virtual experiences. Aligning incentives across the national and sub‑national layers is not bureaucratic tinkering: it is how policy turns planned investments into actual jobs, livelihoods and resilient industrial ecosystems.

And yes — if states and Centre move together on ELI alignment, the promise of "make it in India" will translate into work on the ground where people need it.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh