|
|
We Can and We
Should Do
The Economic Times, May 22, 2009
|
By Pradeep S Mehta
|
The recommendations for reform in
infrastructure governance arising from the
splendid work done by the Planning
Commission and NGOs have to make the journey
from paper to the realm of implementation,
says Pradeep S Mehta |
DR
MANMOHAN Singh deserves our heartiest
congratulations on being elected for a second
term, a rare performance. It is thus time for him
to introspect and travel down the memory lane. On
25 December, 2004 he wrote in this newspaper: “I
do hope that in the New Year (2005) we can all
work together to build a more equitable,
competitive and humane India…This is a doable
agenda provided we can set aside our ‘make-do’
attitude and adopt a ‘cando’ spirit”. We hope that
Dr Singh’s second term can become a Can-Do and
Shall-Do period, and not just for one year.
During
the last four years, many hurdles came his way,
including the global economic downturn. With a
more stable coalition, progress for the country
along the path of inclusive growth will need more
than stimulus packages and some ‘out of the box’
and determined thinking, like the nuclear deal.
Many ideas cannot be postponed or vital issues
left hanging on a cliff. This will need clear
signalling. This should include harvesting
low-hanging fruits within the next 100 days, so
that everyone knows that it will not be business
as usual. Much of the agenda has already been
elucidated in the Planning Commission’s recent
policy document: ‘Inclusive growth’.
Over
the past few weeks, many pundits and edits have
been spinning out various prescriptions of action
for the new government. They did not anticipate
the same government triumphing over the
anti-incumbency factor and returning to power. We
the people of India have voted for continuity over
change. Thus, we hope that the country can move
forward with a stronger coalition, which will
overcome the tail-wagging-the-dog syndrome.
The
compulsions of coalition politics had inter alia
paralysed progress in many of our infrastructure
sectors. I focus here on this one area. Due to
space constraints, I am not discussing several
other important issues, such as finance, debt
management, markets, climate change, employment,
security, agriculture, poverty eradication, etc.
As Dr
Singh and many others have said, we need to boost
investment in the infra sector as a
counter-cyclical measure. Even a student of
economics knows that infra is a key multiplier of
jobs and a source of elevation in living
standards. The malaise in the infra area in the
recent past was aided by poor governance and pork
barrel politics in spite of Dr Singh assuming
command of the situation. Alas, the process became
a stumbling block, rather than a catalyst. This
needs to be revisited.
In the
government, it is the cross-cutting departments
like economic affairs or the cabinet secretariat
which have the clout and the authority to push the
infra agenda. Indeed much of this depends upon the
men or women in charge at the ministerial and
secretary levels, so allocation of portfolios and
responsibilities also do matter.
To
illustrate from the past, when the government had
to focus on disinvestment, a new ministry was
created and dynamic ministers were appointed. This
helped it to push a highly desirable agenda which
was otherwise bedevilled by turf issues, as indeed
infra is today. This model should not be discarded
just because it was adopted by the NDA. Moreover,
there are other ways in which infra can get the
much needed attention and boost. Perhaps a full
fledged department of infrastructure headed by a
secretary under the finance ministry or the
cabinet secretary will do the trick.
THE
government also has to cut down expenditure and
curb the expanding deficit. That can be done by
winding up the many commissions and committees set
up to park eminent citizens and retired
bureaucrats and do things, which were never done.
There is a need to do a social audit of such
efforts and a white paper published. Catharsis
must begin with confession. The white paper should
also examine and recommend rationalisation of the
role of several ministries whose subjects are
mainly dealt with by states, and check whether
they have contributed at all to the economy.
The
recommendations for reform in infrastructure
governance arising from the splendid work done by
think tanks like the Planning Commission and NGOs
have to make the journey from paper to the realm
of implementation. For example, the Planning
Commission’s draft paper on ‘Approaches to
Regulation of Infrastructure’ and the draft
Regulatory Reform Bill, a law for designing a
uniform architecture for regulatory authorities.
In
2004, the government had also promised that
“competition, both domestic and external, will be
deepened across industry with professionally-run
regulatory institutions in place to ensure that
competition is free and fair”. Not many will agree
that this goal has been achieved, though some very
small steps forward have been taken. One of them
is the adoption of a National Competition Policy,
as recommended in the Planning Commission’s policy
document: ‘Inclusive growth’.
The
policy document also highlights the role of
private sector investment in bridging our huge
infrastructure deficit. There is a fair amount of
national consensus on such investment
liberalisation across the political spectrum.
However, liberalisation needs to be accompanied by
effective competition policy reforms.
Nobel
laureate Joseph Stiglitz has observed: “Strong
competition policy is not just a luxury to be
enjoyed by rich countries, but a real necessity
for those striving to create democratic market
economies”. An effective competition policy
requires determination and administrative capacity
to tackle at least some vested interests.
At the
same time, the onerous business regulatory
framework is itself an entry barrier to new
entrants. The World Bank has assigned India a rank
of 122 among 181 nations in terms of the ‘ease of
doing business’ in 2009. When disaggregated, we
are right at the bottom in terms of enforcement of
contracts. This too is either a disincentive for
business activity or a trigger for the use of
‘informal’ channels to resolve disputes which
often breeds corruption and social discord.
Therefore, the government needs to put legal
reforms on the fast track and engage the judiciary
actively.In sum, there are many things that Dr
Singh can do and should do.
This article can also be viewed at:
http://epaper.timesofindia.com/
Archives |