From Digital Skill Development to Economic Justice An Empirical Assessment of DDU-GKY and the Case for Restitution-Oriented Governance in Keralam

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between digital skill development, economic justice and restitution-oriented governance through an empirical assessment of the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) in Keralam. It uses district-level and annual data reproduced in Surendran and Soundarapandian’s study, covering 2015–16 to 2023–24, alongside official programme information published by the Government of Keralam, the Ministry of Rural Development and other public sources. The source study reports 75,682 candidates trained in Keralam over the period, with annual training rising from 3,154 in 2015–16 to 13,446 in 2019–20 before falling sharply in 2020–21 and subsequently recovering only partially. District distributions vary substantially across years: Malappuram, Thiruvananthapuram, Ernakulam, Palakkad and other districts alternately account for comparatively high shares, while some districts show lower counts in particular years. The source also contains district-level series for assessment, certification, dropout, appointment, enrolment and three-month continuity, but their totals do not consistently reconcile with other tables in the same study. These inconsistencies are treated as a data-governance issue rather than silently corrected. The paper argues that digital records can improve traceability only when they are accurate, interoperable, auditable, privacy-protective and linked to accessible grievance mechanisms. Descriptive statistics establish geographical and temporal variation but do not prove that ICT caused programme outcomes, that a district was unfairly treated, or that a beneficiary suffered legally compensable loss. The proposed contribution is a district-sensitive accountability model that links enrolment, training, assessment, certification, verified placement, retention and complaints, and provides proportionate remedies where a failure and resulting harm are established. Restitution is therefore treated as a governance and remedial framework, not as an automatic entitlement to compensation for every unsuccessful placement.