By – Amar Yumnam
Imphal, July 14:
In my column of last week, I had emphasized that Manipur needs a Social Policy, and definitely not disconnected and pretentious policies at that. I had also explained what a Social Policy is like and how it has emerged as the contemporary approach in place of the earlier unrelated sectoral approaches; the compulsiveness for this in the present scenario of Manipur need not be overemphasized.
In a place like Manipur with poor, if any, business and industrial houses of social-outcome-determination capability, the preeminence of government policies is naturally self-evident; it is not just a government but necessarily a government with policy. In a federalism context, I had put forth the point that – irrespective of size of demography and geography (I am using the term geography intentionally rather than territory, given the contemporary approach to development) – the needed constituents of the policy should not be ignored. Equality, Morality and Justice are now foundations of Development Policy, for that matter any policy. While in the earlier period the returns to investment were the focus, irrespective of sacrifices in certain other areas, the decision-making today necessarily looks at every dimension with the issues of Justice and Morality being brought in as one of the prominent foundations. While there were activities in which the participants had to bear a part of the cost of the activity in order to enjoy the benefits of any activity; this is what the Economists call Transaction Costs. But today, the logic of any policy is such that the benefits of any activity cannot be denied to anyone who does not have the ability to bear any cost burden. This is how Morality and Justice are unavoidable guiding components of any policy decision.
It is in this context that I have heard of a decision by the government that families whose houses have been destroyed by flood or otherwise would be provided a sum of Rs. 75,000 (Rupees seventy-five thousand) for reconstructing a new house for themselves. Two thoughts immediately came to me. First, I felt the decision was just a rumour to assess the public sentiments whatsoever on it. Second, if it is final and true, it immediately occurred to me that the Government does not have any understanding of what a ‘Policy’ is like.
Before trying to appreciate what a Policy should be like, let me put some points on time perspective. A Policy should necessarily ensure no deterioration in the current well-being of the population. Secondly and a more important one, a policy should inevitably create a vision and scheme and mechanism for improvement in the future livelihood scenario of the population. These two imply that the future is what the Government is leading the people along. This is where the role of Good Governance comes and how the measurement of quality of governance comes in. Policy “[i]n one way they can be seen as aims or goals, or statements of what ought to happen. Social policies aim to improve human welfare (though they often fail to do so) and to meet human needs for education, health, housing and social security.”
It is because of the significance of government with this capability that the Quality of Governance is now a major area of study. The regular study of the World Bank on Quality of Governance contains six categories which is generally divided into two categories by academic researchers for convenience: “The first group contains four measures primarily concerned with the quality of the delivery of government services: government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and the control of corruption. The second group of two indicators measures the state of democracy: the first covering voice and accountability, and the second political stability and absence of violence.”
Now let us look at the Rs, 75,000 decision as a sample for the quality of governance in Manipur, with the assumption that the Government does not have funds enough for outright sufficient relief of the sufferers (very unrealistic assumption given the claims of capability of the Government of India). Now let us look at the potential options. First, it could be a right one if this were accompanied by a policy of engagement opportunities for the members of the suffering families to earn reasonable amounts per months to complete their liveable houses within a year or two without taking recourse to private borrowings or selling off a part of their existing property. Second, it could be a case where banks extend loans with lower interest rates with an assurance of engagement in earning opportunities to the members of the suffering families. Third, besides one of the alternatives of these two, the immediate policy should be one where the children are assured of undisturbed education either in hostel facilities or special creation of facilities in every locality for studies by the children. Fourth, it could be that the families were all assessed and their differential requirements were provided.
Looking at these, the last one is unthinkable for serious application of mind to the issues to be addressed is an avoided behaviour of the government today. As regards Education, it is now a least priority area; we had so many schools at the local levels which are not effective learning centres any more. Even at the higher education level, we had a very highly prestigious college which is now no more and hear that it has been made to become something which is nothing yet. When it comes to engagement opportunities, it can be done away with a non-possible promise of 50,000 new employment creation.
Thinking of how the Government is behaving to resolve the issues of Manipur, I am reminded of Oliver Williamson (whom I read extensively during my stay in Los Angles during 2005-2006) who had written extensively on what I had mentioned above – Transaction Costs. Rs. 75,000 multiplied by the number of families would go from the coffers of Government while this one-time amount would never be able to have a reasonable house while simultaneously make it impossible to take care of the education and other important needs of the family; neither the Government nor the families would be benefitted. The final result would be a rise in Social Transaction Cost without achieving anything. It is as good as destruction of the Social Capability of Manipur – Morally wrong and Justice violated.