Introduction
In
an article in this paper (Indian Express, August 22, 2014) Prof Ashutosh
Varshney of Brown University asserts:
“It is Amartya Sen, the nemesis of neo-liberals, who would emphasize
toilets as much as growth.” This is perhaps a
true perception in the exalted World of Western Academia and among the many academic
followers of Prof Sen in India. However what happens in the trenches of Yojna Bhavan, North
and South block where many of these and related issues were decided is starkly different. It is the
followers (neo-communist/neo left?) of Prof Sen who emphasized increased
“private health spending” on middle class diseases over “public health”
spending on sewers and sanitation. It is the “neo-leftists” who emphasized “right
to food” as a means of eliminating malnutrition as against, sewers sanitation
and toilets, that “market liberal” like me showed was the main cause of child
malnutrition.[i]
It is these neo-leftists who emphasized doubling and tripling the money
allocated (inputs) on standard inefficient, corrupt, leaking food, education and
health programs (mostly States subjects), ignoring or downplaying arguments on the vital need
to achieve better outcomes/results by first improving their effectiveness by addressing governance issues(including that of corruption).
Market Liberal Analysis
A Planning Commission
paper Virmani (2006)[ii]
analysed poverty, hunger, education and health indicators (in a comparative
framework) and their linkage to government policy and programs and argued that,
“The broad theme that emerges is that the failures on this front, apart
from the indirect effects of growth, are linked directly to the failure of
governance. This failure has many
dimensions; the misallocation of government resources, the failure to follow
norms of social benefit-cost analysis that were the reason-de-tar for the
introduction of national planning, the neglect of public and quasi-public goods
that are the most fundamental justification for the existence of government and
a gradual (over decades) but progressive deterioration in the quality of
governance. This conclusion differs radically from the conventional wisdom
(national and international) about India’s poverty, social indicators and
income distribution. Even if treated as a hypothesis it merits
debate and further analysis.”
The paper concluded that, “It can be argued that the
ideal (most efficient) social welfare policy is a direct transfer of income to
the poor through a negative income tax.
In a developed country this would be very easy. How can we transfer these amounts directly to
the poor, the needy and the disadvantaged in a poor country? The answer, by setting up an Indian version
using a modern smart card system that delivers cash and/or subsidies to the
poor based on their entitlements as per specified parameters and norms. Such a smart card could be programmed with
identity (photo & biometric fingerprint), and have information on social
(SC/ST) and personal/household characteristics.
Each person/ households’ entitlements could be in the form of specified
subsidies for the purchase of each of a set of items. The set of items could include food/cereals,
kerosene, midday meals, nutrition supplements, drinking water, toilet/
sanitation services, basic drugs, schooling (primary/secondary), internet
access, electricity and a host of other items reflecting the dozens of
subsidies and programs currently in existence.
The entitlement could be varied with and dependent on various economic
and social handicaps such as SC-ST, age (infant or aged), mental handicap,
physical disability, female head of household, lactating mother, chronic
illness. In this way all the current
stakeholders, special interest groups and social policies could be accommodated
within a single integrated system.”
“Figure .. shows clearly that the
access of our population to sanitation services is much worse than is to be
expected at our level of per capita GDP.
Further 89% of the countries for which data is available perform better
on this indicator than India. This is rank is worse than our rank on the
mortality indicators and life expectancy indicators”
“Where we have failed as a nation
is in improving our basic social indicators like literacy and mortality
rates. Much of the failure is a legacy
of the three decades of Indian socialism (till 1979-80). The rate of improvement of most indicators
has accelerated during the market period (starting 1980-81). The gap between our level and that of global
benchmarks is still wide and our global ranking on most of these social
parameters remains very poor. This is
the result of government failure. Government overstretch, misplaced priorities
and deteriorating quality (corruption) has resulted in a failure to fulfil the
traditional, accepted functions of government like public safety &
security, universal literacy and primary education, public health education
(superstition & quackery), provision of drinkable water, sanitation drains
& sewage facilities, public health (infectious & epidemic diseases),
building roads and creating & disseminating
agricultural technology.
Consequently the improvement in social indicators has not kept pace with
economic growth and poverty decline and has led to increasing interstate
disparities in growth and poverty.”
Neo-leftist Sabotage
A presentation of this paper to Planning Commission Members and their
Advisors was scheduled and cancelled several times because of the
unavailability of ‘certain’ Planning commission members and never took place
because of their active discouragement. Apparently the neo-leftists thought it
was too dangerous to even present the comparative data on hunger, health &
education, or discuss the conclusions reached.
The idea of “eliminating” poverty was perhaps too explosive for the “neo-leftists” and “neo-communists” who were comfortable with “alleviating” poverty for another half century. Even the fact that “sanitation” was a more important problem in India than general health, education, hunger and poverty was too dirty a thought for the “Brahmins of Poverty”. Not surprisingly, the analysis and recommendations relating to sanitation and malnutrition the next year, were similarly ignored.[iii]
The idea of “eliminating” poverty was perhaps too explosive for the “neo-leftists” and “neo-communists” who were comfortable with “alleviating” poverty for another half century. Even the fact that “sanitation” was a more important problem in India than general health, education, hunger and poverty was too dirty a thought for the “Brahmins of Poverty”. Not surprisingly, the analysis and recommendations relating to sanitation and malnutrition the next year, were similarly ignored.[iii]
-----------------------------
A version of this article was published in the Indian Express of August 25, 2014, under the banner, “Wrong End of The Right Debate: The Neo-Liberals emphasise Sanitation, Sewers and Toilets, not neo-communists,” http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-wrong-end-of-the-right-debate/
[i] Arvind Virmani, “The Sudoku of Growth, Poverty and Malnutrition:
Lessons For Lagging States,” Working Paper No. 2/2007-PC, Planning Commission, July 2007
[ii] Arvind Virmani, “Poverty And Hunger In India: What is needed To
Eliminate Them,” Working Paper No. 1/2006-PC, Planning Commission, February
2006
[iii] Virmani (2007) op cit, fn i
