Last week, over 500 district collectors were in Delhi for a two-day conference. The finance minister and several other ministers addressed the gathering. The Prime Minister spent time as well. The collectors were told what the nation expected of them. The slogan now is ?inclusive growth??to ensure that growth reaches all and that government programmes, carefully formulated by the best economists in the country, get implemented in the manner they are conceived.
I asked whether the collectors were able to report conditions in the field, to seek advice and suggestions. I was told there was not much time for interaction.
Twenty years ago, district collectors were the flavour of the day. The Panchayati Raj amendments were under discussion, and the Prime Minister held several meetings with district-level functionaries, elected representatives, and local bodies, in an effort to decentralise the decision-making process in development.
Thirty years ago, banks had been nationalised, the Integrated Rural Development Programme initiated, and ministers from the Centre toured district after district, persuading banks to distribute loans to the poor, trying to turn persons who could not eke out a living, into entrepreneurs and risk takers.
Forty years ago was the time of community development initiatives, and village-level workers interacted with communities, advising them on agricultural practices, introducing the green revolution. And, in short, handholding villagers into some level of technological and knowledge upgradation. District collectors were the implementing arms of these programmes.
Interestingly, this decadal cycle missed the time period 10 years ago. At that time, direct intervention was not favoured. It was IMF time, with liberalisation policies, the private sector having to do what the public sector had done before, and little investment in agriculture, irrigation, or rural water supply.
It seems we are back again to the tried and often unsuccessful solutions. One may argue that the district administration is the only structure available, to ensure funds and activities reach the masses. Yet, this argument has several corollaries? that development efforts depend on state governments, that alternative strategies like local body empowerment or district administrations have not been able to deliver. It also assumes the influence and power of the administration remains what it was decades ago. And that repeated assaults on that structure have still left it intact. Perhaps the performance of some collectors in Tamil Nadu for relief operations in the wake of the tsunami indicates this is true, at least in some states.
Most important, it assumes there are no new alternatives, that all talk of e-governance and paperless offices, of empowerment of self-help groups and planning at the panchayat level, of national missions for water supply and irrigation programmes, are but straws in the wind. And that the weight of development rests on the shoulders of this functionary.
However, the world has changed in a decade. Tenures are no longer assured ?there are stories of collectors never unpacking. As the conference went on, there was news of two collectors being transferred for political reasons. District administration is so much a function of district-level politics that the PM could have considered holding a conference of the district political heavyweights.
Even for relief operations, the collector can work only where local political bosses give him space, as they do not want to handle the messy part of rehabilitation and relief. The administration can, thereby, deliver. In most states, departmental hierarchies are strong and the collector has little role in the implementation of programmes. Further, local bodies guard their turf zealously, actively encouraged by the Centre. The collector has little or no say in the utilisation or effectiveness of fund deployment. Finally, even the law and order responsibilities in several states are not with the collector and today, 20% of the country is exposed to extremist influence. He is far less in control than he was two decades ago.
The purpose of this litany is to lament the lack of fresh thinking and the assumption that by dusting and delivering age-old solutions, somehow, things will work out. There are alternatives that work, not just in other countries, but even here.
For instance, the effort on micro-credit institutions is a step in the right direction. Properly empowered, guided and managed, they would be able to deliver progress at the grassroots. Political processes are still wary of them. In Andhra they are opposing them. An effort to mainstream their activities is likely to fetch rich rewards.
The model of the rural roads programme (PMGSY) is a successful one. Dedicated personnel, meticulous planning, careful tendering and independent supervision of quality of execution have delivered a programme that is already improving market access for farmers.
Several market-based initiatives are working as well. Housing, higher education, healthcare are some examples. Can we privatise more services? Mid-day meals, for example? In short, can enterprise development be an alternative? Finally, administrative reforms should reform the way processes function, not just the way functionaries process matters.
Inclusive growth can arise if opportunities are provided for the rural poor and the agriculturists. A new green revolution is required, one that focuses on cash crops and on the marketing chain. Much has been heard about public-private partnerships, but there?s little progress. Hopefully, the idea of the exercise is not to make the poor collector responsible for non-implementation of the CMP.
The writer is a former finance secretary and economic advisor to the PM