Corrective injustice for combating corruption
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Prof Rehman Sobhan
LOW productivity remains an important source of income poverty. Higher income and ownership of wealth remains closely correlated to higher levels of education. Low productivity, thus, originates in insufficient access to education and technology. Failure to meet the demand of the resource poor for quality education at affordable prices is yet another example of market failure in South Asia.
This market failure is not unique to South Asia and has been universally compensated by state intervention. The problem in South Asia originally lay in the insufficient resources committed to education. The subsequent move to invest a larger share of public resources across South Asia in education served to expand opportunities for the resource poor. But a combination of poor governance and as well as insufficient public expenditure has contributed to the widening disparity in the quality of education which divides the rural and urban areas as well as the majority of the people from a much narrower elite.
In much of South Asia, today, the principal inequity in the education sector is manifested in the growing divide between a better educated elite with access to private as well as foreign education and the resource poor who remain condemned to remain captive within an insufficiently funded and poorly governed public education system supplemented by poor quality private or denominational schools. In an increasingly knowledge based global economy, which is driving the IT revolution, inequitable access to quality education, relevant to the dynamics of the market, could emerge as the principal deprivation of the excluded in South Asia.
Failure to provide adequate education to the excluded is compounded by the failure to provide adequate health care. Whilst public expenditures on health care in all South Asia countries have expanded in recent years the quality of public services remains both inadequate and deficient in quality. As a result, a large part of the health care in most South Asian countries is provided by low calibre private providers. Quality health care has thus remained the privilege of those with the resources to pay for this from private providers either at home or abroad. When the compulsion for survival drives the excluded to avail of quality private health care services, its costs could drive those with limited income into poverty and the already resource poor into extreme poverty,
Public health care services, where available, have served the excluded but at high transaction costs where access to quality care becomes a privilege rather than a right. As a result, public care, particularly at the tertiary level, tends to be accessed by those who have the access and resources to lay claim to better quality services. In such a universe access to health care has emerged as yet another social divider between, the elite and excluded of South Asia. This divide has served to compromise the life chances of the excluded and thereby continues to perpetuate inequality and injustice in this region.
Unjust governance: This inequitable and unjust social and economic universe is compounded by a system of unjust governance in South Asia which discriminates against the excluded and effectively disenfranchises them from the political benefits of a democratic process. The excluded, whether they tend to be women, the resource poor or minorities, remain excluded from the policy concerns of the ruling elite, voiceless in the institutions of governance and hence, underserved by available public services. Where such services are at all accessible to the excluded, they pay high transaction costs for these services.
The agencies of law enforcement insufficiently protect the excluded and frequently oppress them for personal gain as well as on behalf of the elite. The judicial system, in most South Asian countries, denies the excluded elementary justice because of their poverty as well as the social bias of most South Asian judiciaries. The institutions of democracy remain unresponsive to the needs of the excluded, both in the design of their policy agendas as well as the selection of their electoral candidates.
In such a social universe the excluded of South Asia remain tyrannized by state as well as money power and have to seek the protection of their oppressors, within a system of patron-client relationships, which perpetuates the prevailing hierarchies of power. Where the democratic process prevails or has been renewed after long episodes of autocratic rule, the excluded of South Asia are denied adequate access to office in the political parties or representation in the systems of democratic governance from the local to the national level. Representative institutions tend to be monopolized by the affluent and socially powerful who then use their electoral office to enhance their wealth and thereby perpetuate their hold over power.
In such an inequitable and politically unjust environment, the benefits of democracy remain the privilege of the elite supported by small collectives of sectional power. In contrast, the needs of the excluded, whether for decent work or improved human development, remain unrecognized. Even where the excluded register their disenchantment at the polling booths by voting a succession of incumbent regimes out of office across South Asia, the political parties in every country have remained largely unresponsive in heeding the political voice of what may be the largest segment of the voting population. In such circumstances the political parties which are contesting for power should be offering a new set of policies and a new style of governance to their respective voters. In practice, government after government across South Asia has continued to offer a broadly unchanged set of policy prescriptions which are in some discredit across much of the developing world and recently even in the developed world.
Since the majority of the voters in South Asia tend to be drawn from the ranks of the excluded it would be politically sensible to ascertain what these voters actually want. But governments neither consult with their principal constituents on what they want nor do they design policies which may be sensitive to their specific concerns. This lack of an appropriate political response to the voices of the excluded reflects a form of political market failure in South Asia.
It also reflects a form of institutional failure whereby the excluded have remained, as in the economic market place, unable to get themselves heard. The excluded tend to be isolated and hence incapable of deploying the strength of their collective political power. So far the existing political parties, even those who draw their inspiration from this class, have failed to organize the excluded to act collectively. Nor have the excluded been able to organize themselves to come together to project their own interests.
Correcting injustice: If we are to correct these injustices which deprive a significant segment of the population of South Asia from more effectively contributing to and sharing in the development process our policy agendas need to be made more inclusive. The work programme at Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) has attempted to address the issue of correcting injustice through empowerment of the excluded, by strengthening their capacity to participate on more equitable terms in a market economy and democratic polity. The proposed policy interventions suggested by the CPD study, to empower the excluded of South Asia, are structured under the following heads:
l Expanding the ownership and control of the excluded over productive assets
l Enhancing their access to a knowledge based society
l Strengthening the capacity of the excluded to compete in the market place
l Redesigning budgetary policy to reach public resources to the poor.
l Restructuring financial policy to deliver credit and provide savings instruments to the excluded
l Designing institutions for the excluded
l Empowering the excluded
This study is also designed to address the need and scope for policy change in South Asia to promote more inclusive development through interventions in the areas indicated above. The work initially addresses the inadequacies in the prevailing poverty alleviation strategies to address structural issues. The work then moves on to define the nature of the structural constraint, in each of the identified areas, on the participation of the excluded in the development process. We go on to explore opportunities for change and where relevant discuss particular attempts at the governmental, non-governmental and private sector level, to promote more inclusive development. We use this evidence to then identifying a realistic set of possible interventions to realize more inclusive development through realizing structural change and the practical problem involved in realizing these changes. In conclusion, we discuss the political economy of change, taking account of the resistance to and support for such changes.
Our work is situated within the circumstances of the five biggest countries in the South Asia region, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. These circumstances vary as between countries so that specific interventions will need to be calibrated to the situation in each country. The work should thus be viewed as a basis for initiating more intensive studies and debates within each South Asia countries, on the opportunities for realizing structural change. These debates will need to move beyond the academic and bureaucratic domain and extend into the public arena. At the same time the international development community (IDC) will also have to put its commitment to poverty reduction to the test and will have to demonstrate whether they are willing to address the structural sources of poverty and do something to correct the injustices which sustain it.
The writer is chairman of Centre for Policy Dialogue. This paper titled 'Rethinking Poverty Eradication in South Asia: An Agenda for Inclusive Development' was presented at a two-day seminar under SACFPS/CPD project held in Dhaka
LOW productivity remains an important source of income poverty. Higher income and ownership of wealth remains closely correlated to higher levels of education. Low productivity, thus, originates in insufficient access to education and technology. Failure to meet the demand of the resource poor for quality education at affordable prices is yet another example of market failure in South Asia.
This market failure is not unique to South Asia and has been universally compensated by state intervention. The problem in South Asia originally lay in the insufficient resources committed to education. The subsequent move to invest a larger share of public resources across South Asia in education served to expand opportunities for the resource poor. But a combination of poor governance and as well as insufficient public expenditure has contributed to the widening disparity in the quality of education which divides the rural and urban areas as well as the majority of the people from a much narrower elite.
In much of South Asia, today, the principal inequity in the education sector is manifested in the growing divide between a better educated elite with access to private as well as foreign education and the resource poor who remain condemned to remain captive within an insufficiently funded and poorly governed public education system supplemented by poor quality private or denominational schools. In an increasingly knowledge based global economy, which is driving the IT revolution, inequitable access to quality education, relevant to the dynamics of the market, could emerge as the principal deprivation of the excluded in South Asia.
Failure to provide adequate education to the excluded is compounded by the failure to provide adequate health care. Whilst public expenditures on health care in all South Asia countries have expanded in recent years the quality of public services remains both inadequate and deficient in quality. As a result, a large part of the health care in most South Asian countries is provided by low calibre private providers. Quality health care has thus remained the privilege of those with the resources to pay for this from private providers either at home or abroad. When the compulsion for survival drives the excluded to avail of quality private health care services, its costs could drive those with limited income into poverty and the already resource poor into extreme poverty,
Public health care services, where available, have served the excluded but at high transaction costs where access to quality care becomes a privilege rather than a right. As a result, public care, particularly at the tertiary level, tends to be accessed by those who have the access and resources to lay claim to better quality services. In such a universe access to health care has emerged as yet another social divider between, the elite and excluded of South Asia. This divide has served to compromise the life chances of the excluded and thereby continues to perpetuate inequality and injustice in this region.
Unjust governance: This inequitable and unjust social and economic universe is compounded by a system of unjust governance in South Asia which discriminates against the excluded and effectively disenfranchises them from the political benefits of a democratic process. The excluded, whether they tend to be women, the resource poor or minorities, remain excluded from the policy concerns of the ruling elite, voiceless in the institutions of governance and hence, underserved by available public services. Where such services are at all accessible to the excluded, they pay high transaction costs for these services.
The agencies of law enforcement insufficiently protect the excluded and frequently oppress them for personal gain as well as on behalf of the elite. The judicial system, in most South Asian countries, denies the excluded elementary justice because of their poverty as well as the social bias of most South Asian judiciaries. The institutions of democracy remain unresponsive to the needs of the excluded, both in the design of their policy agendas as well as the selection of their electoral candidates.
In such a social universe the excluded of South Asia remain tyrannized by state as well as money power and have to seek the protection of their oppressors, within a system of patron-client relationships, which perpetuates the prevailing hierarchies of power. Where the democratic process prevails or has been renewed after long episodes of autocratic rule, the excluded of South Asia are denied adequate access to office in the political parties or representation in the systems of democratic governance from the local to the national level. Representative institutions tend to be monopolized by the affluent and socially powerful who then use their electoral office to enhance their wealth and thereby perpetuate their hold over power.
In such an inequitable and politically unjust environment, the benefits of democracy remain the privilege of the elite supported by small collectives of sectional power. In contrast, the needs of the excluded, whether for decent work or improved human development, remain unrecognized. Even where the excluded register their disenchantment at the polling booths by voting a succession of incumbent regimes out of office across South Asia, the political parties in every country have remained largely unresponsive in heeding the political voice of what may be the largest segment of the voting population. In such circumstances the political parties which are contesting for power should be offering a new set of policies and a new style of governance to their respective voters. In practice, government after government across South Asia has continued to offer a broadly unchanged set of policy prescriptions which are in some discredit across much of the developing world and recently even in the developed world.
Since the majority of the voters in South Asia tend to be drawn from the ranks of the excluded it would be politically sensible to ascertain what these voters actually want. But governments neither consult with their principal constituents on what they want nor do they design policies which may be sensitive to their specific concerns. This lack of an appropriate political response to the voices of the excluded reflects a form of political market failure in South Asia.
It also reflects a form of institutional failure whereby the excluded have remained, as in the economic market place, unable to get themselves heard. The excluded tend to be isolated and hence incapable of deploying the strength of their collective political power. So far the existing political parties, even those who draw their inspiration from this class, have failed to organize the excluded to act collectively. Nor have the excluded been able to organize themselves to come together to project their own interests.
Correcting injustice: If we are to correct these injustices which deprive a significant segment of the population of South Asia from more effectively contributing to and sharing in the development process our policy agendas need to be made more inclusive. The work programme at Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) has attempted to address the issue of correcting injustice through empowerment of the excluded, by strengthening their capacity to participate on more equitable terms in a market economy and democratic polity. The proposed policy interventions suggested by the CPD study, to empower the excluded of South Asia, are structured under the following heads:
l Expanding the ownership and control of the excluded over productive assets
l Enhancing their access to a knowledge based society
l Strengthening the capacity of the excluded to compete in the market place
l Redesigning budgetary policy to reach public resources to the poor.
l Restructuring financial policy to deliver credit and provide savings instruments to the excluded
l Designing institutions for the excluded
l Empowering the excluded
This study is also designed to address the need and scope for policy change in South Asia to promote more inclusive development through interventions in the areas indicated above. The work initially addresses the inadequacies in the prevailing poverty alleviation strategies to address structural issues. The work then moves on to define the nature of the structural constraint, in each of the identified areas, on the participation of the excluded in the development process. We go on to explore opportunities for change and where relevant discuss particular attempts at the governmental, non-governmental and private sector level, to promote more inclusive development. We use this evidence to then identifying a realistic set of possible interventions to realize more inclusive development through realizing structural change and the practical problem involved in realizing these changes. In conclusion, we discuss the political economy of change, taking account of the resistance to and support for such changes.
Our work is situated within the circumstances of the five biggest countries in the South Asia region, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. These circumstances vary as between countries so that specific interventions will need to be calibrated to the situation in each country. The work should thus be viewed as a basis for initiating more intensive studies and debates within each South Asia countries, on the opportunities for realizing structural change. These debates will need to move beyond the academic and bureaucratic domain and extend into the public arena. At the same time the international development community (IDC) will also have to put its commitment to poverty reduction to the test and will have to demonstrate whether they are willing to address the structural sources of poverty and do something to correct the injustices which sustain it.
The writer is chairman of Centre for Policy Dialogue. This paper titled 'Rethinking Poverty Eradication in South Asia: An Agenda for Inclusive Development' was presented at a two-day seminar under SACFPS/CPD project held in Dhaka