It is indeed necessary to have improved outcomes in the delivery of public services. But it cannot also be denied that in areas like primary education, public health, nutrition and social security, public expenditure has been pathetically low. What is needed is enhanced public investment which would trigger better delivery. Increased social spending has, sadly, come to be associated only with the Left whereas it is very much needed to make economic reforms more equitable and inclusive.

The 2004-5 and 2005-6 budgets have shown unprecedented increases in Central government expenditure on the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the mid-day meal scheme, public health and family welfare, women and child development and rural employment. These increases have to be sustained. In some of these programmes, management reforms have already been introduced. Each district, for instance, has a separate Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Authority into which the funds from the Centre flow, thus eliminating the problem of delay and diversion on the part of the state authorities. The proposed Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme will be implemented through elected panchayat institutions. There are other innovations on the anvil which may involve self-help groups and NGOs for better performance.

The Right to Information Act is a powerful instrument to enforce greater accountability in implementing government schemes. This was demonstrated when the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan succeeded in opening up the local administration in Rajasthan.

Public-private partnership has become the buzzword in many areas in the search for better outcomes. Success has been mixed so far. It has worked well in highways but is yet to yield tangible results in power distribution as the experience in Delhi reveals. These partnerships have a key role to play but they must be fully transparent.

Better outcomes will also depend on systemic changes. Empowering elected panchayats at the village and district level by devolving funds, functions and functionaries to them as envisaged in the 73rd amendment to the Constitution is a radical systems change. But there are limitations even here, particularly in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar where panchayat bodies don't have the same position as in, say, West Bengal and Karnataka. While the further splitting of Uttar Pradesh into three-four states is an extreme step that is not without justification, the linking of devolution of funds with performance is something that recommends itself. Only 15 per cent of the roughly Rs 6,13,112 crore, transferred to states as their share of Central taxes and duties during 2005-10, is based on any performance-linked criteria involving tax effort and fiscal discipline. Stiff conditionalities in Central assistance may seem heartless given the magnitude of the developmental challenge in backward states but without them there will be no pressure for change.

Finally, there is the role of politics. In their book, India: Economic Growth and Social Opportunity, Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze write about the vital role of politics in giving Kerala the quality of life comparable to the best in the world. Of course, that politics has also resulted in its growth stagnation. Perhaps, what is needed is the marriage of Kerala-style politics of welfare with Gujarat-style politics of growth in every state to ensure better outcomes. Since the days of K. Kamaraj, Tamil Nadu has come close to approximating this ideal. The big task is to replicate this in the resource-rich, politics-intensive but governance-poor northern and eastern parts of the country.

The author is a Congress MP.

Index