Sufficient Cause — Shift to Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT): Statement: The government will pay subsidies on food and essential items in cash to beneficiaries’ bank accounts rather than subsidizing market prices. Which of the following is a sufficient cause for this policy shift?

Introduction / Context:
Two broad subsidy delivery modes exist: price subsidies (market-side) and direct cash transfers (beneficiary-side). The question asks for a sufficient cause that justifies switching to DBT.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Effect: Replace price subsidies with bank-credited cash transfers.
• Candidate causes: banking reach, leakage/inefficiency, corruption, long-term policy goals.

Concept / Approach:
A sufficient cause should directly motivate a shift to DBT to improve targeting and reduce losses. While banking penetration (a) enables DBT, the reason to shift is to curb leakage—especially corruption (c) and inefficiency (b). Between (b) and (c), corruption explicitly explains why benefits miss the needy and therefore why DBT is adopted to tighten audit trails and reduce intermediaries.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
(b) Inefficiency also motivates DBT, but “corruption diverting benefits” is a more concrete and sufficient policy cause. (a) is enabling but not sufficient; (d) is a goal statement, not a cause; (e) is irrelevant to subsidy design.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
They either lack sufficiency, are merely facilitators, or are orthogonal to beneficiary targeting.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing necessary enablers (banking reach) with sufficient reasons for a redesign (leakage/corruption).

Final Answer:
Option C: Corruption diverts benefits away from the needy.