Since Amartya Sen has advanced the capability theory in welfare economics, we have come to appreciate the importance of functional capabilities as a parameter of development of an economy and the society at large. This lends governments across the world to focus on capability enhancement, which is the driver for development. India currently boasts of being an emerging economic superpower. But how much of this has translated into real development? According to the Human Development Report 2009, India stands at a poor 135th rank in decreasing order of development. Is something amiss? Are we progressing as fast as we should and in the right direction? These are some of the questions that haunt us as we step into the second decade of the new millennium.
A vast majority of our population is still languishing at the bottom of the pyramid. According to Prof. CK Prahlad (Author: Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid), a rhombus-shaped demographical spread should be what our developmental efforts must be targeted at, rather than the wide-based pyramid that exists currently. Understandably then, we must target fast-paced socio-economic development through capability addition at the bottom of the pyramid. In simple words, empowerment and enablement of the poor should be the focus of our agenda and should consume the king’s share of our resources. Development of capabilities would encompass wide-ranging social objectives like rural education, promotion of rural entrepreneurship through microfinance and other measures, impetus to rural infrastructure development, inland water redistribution (connecting rivers), etc. This will automatically silence many social devils like naxalism which threaten to decimate our country in the near future.
Further, the HDR 2009 states that large gains to human development can be achieved by lowering barriers to human movement and improving the treatment of movers. This should be another focus area for application of our resources. Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are prime examples of how development has been sought to have kept out of bounds of immigrants. This has to end and a lot of our resources also have to be diverted towards eradication of this social demon too.
I’m sure that by this two-point agenda, the orientation of our developmental efforts will be in synergy with the paradigm of holistic development and inclusive growth.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
NGOs.. Why Are They Called So!
I always thought that NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) was a pretty stupid name for organizations that commit themselves to social work. I mean.. every damn private organization is non-governmental.. A company like Infosys is non-governmental.. A college like Loyola is non-governmental.. So what's the big deal about naming these social organizations only as Non Governmental Organizations?
Till it dawned upon me very recently that they are actually doing the work that the Government oughta be doing.. that's why they are agents of public welfare who are trying to make an impact where the government has failed. Isn't it the government's responsibility to safeguard the interest of the society we live in? Isn't it the government's job to ensure that they take care of the needs of not only the majority, but also the marginalized?
I was recently lamenting to a friend that all the poor and disabled beggars on the streets who cannot earn a living for themselves because of physical or mental disability must be given food and shelter by the government at designated centres in every state. It seemed reasonable to me that these people who had no-one were the responsibility of the society at large. And instead of throwing our change at them and expecting them to live off it, we would prefer if the government could provide for them from the taxes that we pay. To this, my friend retorted- why should the government bother? If some NGO wants to do this, they can.
So has the government become only a representative of people who constitute a sizable vote bank? Does it mean that just because these people on the streets do not really contribute to the vote kitty, the government can wash hands off the responsibility of their well being?
Makes me think that in a country of rapidly increasing population and even more rapidly increasing number of NGOs, there should be some fundamental changes in the mechanism of governance. There should be some means of the public having more say in governance than by just voting. There should be a way that the marginalized communities be represented in the government. Because the government is not only for the farmers and the industrialists, but also for the orphans, the AIDS-infected, the widows, the handicapped and the elderly. Just because they are the leftovers of the society doesn't mean that they are not a part of the society at all!
I know that this article raises more questions and gives less answers, but as a naive student of business administration, I feel that there needs to be a grassroots change in the structure of governance.. A change that makes these marginalized people meaningful stakeholders who have a say.. A change which is perhaps so fundamental that we may have to relook at the one vote per head policy! A change which disturbs the dynamics of power.. Now what exactly is this change, can be debated by more able people like scholars of political science, social science and economics, but I sense that something is surely wrong if the society has to device non-governmental and community driven measures to help the marginalized gain access to public money.
Till it dawned upon me very recently that they are actually doing the work that the Government oughta be doing.. that's why they are agents of public welfare who are trying to make an impact where the government has failed. Isn't it the government's responsibility to safeguard the interest of the society we live in? Isn't it the government's job to ensure that they take care of the needs of not only the majority, but also the marginalized?
I was recently lamenting to a friend that all the poor and disabled beggars on the streets who cannot earn a living for themselves because of physical or mental disability must be given food and shelter by the government at designated centres in every state. It seemed reasonable to me that these people who had no-one were the responsibility of the society at large. And instead of throwing our change at them and expecting them to live off it, we would prefer if the government could provide for them from the taxes that we pay. To this, my friend retorted- why should the government bother? If some NGO wants to do this, they can.
So has the government become only a representative of people who constitute a sizable vote bank? Does it mean that just because these people on the streets do not really contribute to the vote kitty, the government can wash hands off the responsibility of their well being?
Makes me think that in a country of rapidly increasing population and even more rapidly increasing number of NGOs, there should be some fundamental changes in the mechanism of governance. There should be some means of the public having more say in governance than by just voting. There should be a way that the marginalized communities be represented in the government. Because the government is not only for the farmers and the industrialists, but also for the orphans, the AIDS-infected, the widows, the handicapped and the elderly. Just because they are the leftovers of the society doesn't mean that they are not a part of the society at all!
I know that this article raises more questions and gives less answers, but as a naive student of business administration, I feel that there needs to be a grassroots change in the structure of governance.. A change that makes these marginalized people meaningful stakeholders who have a say.. A change which is perhaps so fundamental that we may have to relook at the one vote per head policy! A change which disturbs the dynamics of power.. Now what exactly is this change, can be debated by more able people like scholars of political science, social science and economics, but I sense that something is surely wrong if the society has to device non-governmental and community driven measures to help the marginalized gain access to public money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)