By involving local communities in the process of development, we can ensure more equitable and just growth — something which is not captured by Gross Domestic Product. This should be the true metric of both inclusive and sustainable expansion
The pursuit of growth over social justice, which has been the defining credo of classical economists, has brought prosperity to most developing societies. But it has also created huge inequalities. The argument that economic growth is the road to social justice had been relentlessly advocated for a long time with several wrong consequences for poor societies. The question that has now engaged development economists and proponents of social justice is: Does accelerated growth translate into inclusive growth? Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen believed that to think just in terms of income rather than achievements of particular living conditions, like health conditions and expectation of life, is to miss something important.
The dichotomy between the economic might of India vis-a-vis the reality of our crumbling development sectors, leading to India being ranked lowest in Human Development Index, is a pointer to what is wrong with our development paradigm. What are the ends of development — growth in GDP or enhancement of people’s capabilities and widening of their choices and freedom? For all-pervasive prosperity, we need a tide that can lift all boats.
For too long, we have been over-obsessed with two concepts: Top-down bureaucracy and trickle-down economics. We have believed that aggressive growth can generate wealth at the top and this will trickle down to deeper ranks where the poor live. But this has not helped. Many have argued that we need to find a new measure to assess the health of our economies and more importantly, the people. GDP simply totals up everything made within an economy in a year, from widgets to whizzy financial products at their market value. GDP is regarded as a poor indicator of progress and there have been persuasive calls to change the way we measure economic and social development
Dubbed as one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, GDP has long been a closely-watched metric for politicians, administrators, policy doctors and journalists alike. But it is no longer lionised and the love-affair with GDP may come to an end because as economic historian Adam Tooze calls, it is “a narrow and somewhat arbitrary slice of reality.”
There are several social economists, who believe inclusive growth has to be grounded in inclusive governance. In the absence of inclusive governance, people at the grassroot level that is, the intended beneficiaries of social programmes, are left dependent on a bureaucratic delivery mechanism over which they have no effective control. The alternative system would be participatory development, where people themselves are enabled to build their own future through elected representatives who are responsible to address local community needs.
The last two decades have seen a phenomenal rise in market-driven theosophy of growth over State-driven development models that dominated the developing countries in the years that followed their birth. One section embodied the values and principles of the older non-profits and other collectives, including social movements, mass organisations and community-based groups. The other section was located in market and technology spaces and got rapidly populated by new-age non-profits, social enterprises and online collectives.
There is a fundamental contradiction between these spheres. The old non-profits’ worldview is premised on integrated social sciences and systemic approach in which complexity, interdependence and inter-relatedness of diverse factors at work need to be addressed. By contrast, the approach of new-age non-profits emphasises on finding technology-based managerial solutions for complex social, economic and political issues. One is empathetic and human-driven, the other is rational and techno-centric.
Those who look through the techno-managerial lens encourage and enable development groups to zoom straight into the middle of the problem, without the need to engage with contextual complications. This devalues deeper socio-cultural nuances. In this process, the real world, existing in all its complexity, is circumscribed or left behind. It is like creating a bubble in which technical linear solutions are expected to solve complex problems.
The whole issue of development gets artificially locked into a bubble, which is then presented as fertile ground for systems change and innovation. These developments in turn lead to more investment, which results in the bubble belonging to itself till it punctures. The complexity of the socio-economic and political systems and human behaviour remain peripheral to the issue until the bubble bursts. In the meantime, the process of formation of new bubbles sets in.
A large part of the development work is ‘change’. It requires the ability to collectively envision a different future — about ‘design thinking’, ‘direction setting’ and ‘influence’ ie, leadership. The most profound lessons in development are grounded in the philosophy of Gandhism. Gandhi’s leadership was anchored in strong ethical principles. He was convinced that real India lived in villages where the pattern of life was not only timeless but also insulated from the pernicious influence of industrial civilisation.
Taking cue from the hallowed Gandhian traditions, development professionals have plumbed a more democratic planning model, participatory development. It involves a tough balance between not being subservient to the beneficiaries and not coming across as disrespectful to them. Winning a point is not as important as achieving long-term change. If, for this, we have to compromise for the time being, we must be prepared. The core of our relationship must be with the people as also with the Government. We must deal with people who are more permanent in the system and are the key interface with their societies.
Successful development practitioners have always recognised the richness of this local wisdom. By involving local communities in development we can ensure more equitable and just growth — something which is not captured by GDP. This should be the true metric of both inclusive and sustainable development. For example, rapid growth, which involves faster growth in agriculture, especially in rain-fed areas where most of the poor live, will be much more inclusive than a GDP growth that is driven entirely by mining or extraction of minerals for exports.
Amartya Sen had consistently said that “growth rate is a very daft and a deeply alienated way of judging economic progress.” Sen and Jean Druze warned as early as 1995 that reforms that boost growth, though important, were not enough to improve the living conditions of the poorest, let alone dismantle caste and gender hierarchies and generate employment.”
“They have to be supplemented by a radical shift in public policy in education and health,” they wrote.
(The writer is Member, NITI Aayog’s National Committee on Financial Literacy and Inclusion for Women)
