This article appeared in The Indian Express Op Ed page on October 21, 2013, under the banner, "Right To Growth" Don't people in a Democracy have a right to good governance?
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/a-right-to-growth/1185215/0.
Economic growth represents opportunity.
India’s per capita GDP growth was 1.5% during the notorious License Permit
Quota (LPQ) Raj from 1950 to 1980 (Nehru, Indira Gandhi 1). The reversal of these failed policies in the 1980s
(IG 2 & RG) almost doubled the per capita growth rate to 3%. This was
further raised to about 5% (1992 to 2012) by the reforms of the 1990s (Narsimha Rao,
Atal Bihari Vajpayee). The decline of per capita growth to 2% in 2012-13 has come as a shock to
youth who have grown up in the decade of 6% average growth.
The media exposure of high level corruption
at the Center and pervasive governance failure across the country (States) has
heightened the outrage against the government for depriving them of this new
hope of a bright future. There is also a perception that the decline in growth
is due partly to the indifference of the ruling party and its ministers to the
role of economic growth in creating opportunity for all, including generation
of revenues so essential for enhancing opportunities for the poor through
supply of Public Goods (public health, basic education & employable
skills). For instance despite decades of
talk about supply bottlenecks in infrastructure, lack of productivity in
agriculture, leakages in PDS-FCI, abysmal sewage systems there is little public
evidence that State & Central ministers responsible for areas critical to
growth and opportunity, are applying their mind and efforts to solving them.
Don’t people in a democracy have a right to Good Governance?
Perhaps we need, “A Right to
Growth & good Governance Act” to ensure that government at every level
from the Asha worker or primary worker in the village, to the humblest Babu in
the Block office to the DC/DM at the district level to Chief Secretary of the
State and all politicians holding office in State governments or autonomous
bodies can be held accountable for economic growth.
The Chinese experience suggests
that this could be an effective way of achieving sustained development and
faster poverty reductions.[i] Since 1980, when the Chinese Communist Party
(CCP) instituted market reforms, China has had an average per capital growth of
8.8 %, double the 4.3% average achieved by India. One of the major factors has been its primary
focus on economic growth for enhancing national welfare. The objective of
maximizing economic growth has helped in achieving a very effective governance
system that is highly decentralized in operation while maintaining the
unchallenged authority of the General Secretary and the top organs of the
party. The basic objective of growth
maximization filters down not only to every level of government and party but
also to every State & provincial enterprise and party related enterprise.
Within this overall objective, party cadres, govt officials and enterprise
managers are relatively free to experiment on the means to achieve faster
growth. More importantly they are
effectively rewarded for achieving growth targets. The intensity with which
local officials compete to attract investment and the red carpet they lay out
for FDI is apparent to anyone who has visited an enterprise zone in China.
The higher levels of the party
continue to provide overall guidance on the broad directions of growth. For
instance the growth objective was achieved by incentivizing overseas Chinese
entrepreneurs in Hong Kong and China to shift their entire labor intensive
export manufacturing facilities to special zones in China. When this opportunity was exhausted they
turned their attention to more sophisticated FDI from developed countries. When
export opportunities in developed countries appeared to flag and the Asian
crisis struck, the higher level direction changed to using Infrastructure
investment and import substitution of the export supply chain to sustain high
growth. Thus the use of growth achievement to measure the performance of party
members and bureaucrats and to reward them appropriately through promotion and
economic opportunities for their family members has allowed them to develop a
unique blend of centralization and decentralization that has sustained growth
for a historically unprecedented 30 years.
Though it is impossible to
replicate the CCP controlled Chinese system in a democratic country, we can and
should give much greater importance to the Growth objective and also use it to
reward bureaucratic functionaries to promote good governance. All public authorities responsible for
licensing, permits, quotas and inspection would be judged by the growth of
economic activity in their area. Electricity department could be linked to the
growth of metered electricity sale and consequent increase in production.
Similarly public health workers could be held accountable for the no of workers
in their area falling sick due to waterborne or communicable disease and thus
reducing production and growth.
If the Right To Food Act can
eliminate leakages, corruption & inefficiency in the PDS/FCI, as evidenced
by the government’s calculation of fiscal costs, a “Right to (8%) Growth Act” can achieve wonders in eliminating
corruption, improving governance and raising the rate of growth of the economy
to its full potential of 8%.
[i] China’s
Socialist Market Economy: Lessons for Developing Democratic Countries,” Working
Paper No. 5/2006-PC, Planning Commission, June, 2006. http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/wrkpapers/rpwpf.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment