It may have taken the government two months to name the members of the National Advisory Council (NAC) that was constituted at the end of March with Sonia Gandhi as the chairperson, but there were hardly any surprises. Like in NAC-1, the members have been picked from the broad spectrum of ?civil society? rather than politics and most of them are known for their work in social sectors. At least five members of NAC-1, in fact, find a place in NAC-2 as well. These include Aruna Roy and Jean Dreze, prime movers of the two flagship legislations of UPA-1?the RTI and NREG. Interestingly, both Roy and Dreze had quit NAC-1 over differences with the government on the implementation of the common minimum programme, particularly NREG, in 2006. But the NAC had by then been rendered impotent by Sonia Gandhi?s resignation, following the office of profit controversy. In its second avatar, the NAC is expected to focus first on putting pressure on the government to pass the Food Security Act. The government has dithered over it for more than a year and not without reason. There is plenty of debate on the precise definition and estimate of BPL families. There was a deficient monsoon last year and government finances have been under strain. With the reconstitution of the NAC, the government will likely have to pass food security legislation in some form quite quickly.
Yet, there are reasons for the government to be cautious about redistributive spending unless it is very well targeted. It isn?t clear whether that will happen for food security. Concern, after all, continues to dog the implementation of the NREG?Roy and Dreze have often been critical of the way the programme has been implemented. And there lies a challenge for NAC-2. Will it be able to do more than simply recommend spending on social sectors? That is easy enough. Will it be able to actually go further and suggest reform of delivery systems before spending is committed? The RTI was a good piece of legislation to try and enforce more accountability in government, but more reform of the government is needed. None of the members of the NAC are known as economic reformers, i.e. those who favour outright liberalisation of the economy. Let us hope though that they do not use the NAC as a forum to block liberalisation. Their efforts would be better spent in suggesting ways to reform the delivery of government programmes and social services, areas yet untouched by reform of any serious kind.
