governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘reservations’

Gender benders and the Indian State

Image

The duality of India’s gender equity environment is pretty extreme. At the very top there is nothing new about upper crust women exercising political power; Ahilyabai Holkar in the 18th century; Begum Hazrat Mahal in the 19th ; Indira Gandhi in the 20th and Sonia Gandhi today. Post-independence, the glass ceiling at the workplace has been progressively bent. It is fairly common now to be flown by a woman pilot; to petition a woman babu for accessing a public service; collaborate and compete with women colleagues or serve on company boards alongside women. Unfortunately there are still not enough women in the “relentlessly tough” professions; police; engineering and surgery.

At the very bottom, the poor have never had the luxury of not being gender neutral in their fight for survival. If the man cannot provide for his family, women take over the burden through self or casual employment, though it is a much harder fight to take control of common assets. Thankfully, better access to micro-finance; targeted work opportunities and the potential for economic migration in a growing economy, no longer makes it necessary for a poor woman to be a Phoolan “Bandit” Devi to survive.

The problem of gender inequity is most acute in the middle class, where upwardly mobile appearances have to be maintained. There are clearly not enough Bhenjis (Mayawati) and Didis (Mamta) around in the political space. Much the same is true for the workplace.

The formal/organized sector is the benchmark for middle class gender bending. It is here that employment is stable; compensation is adequate and working conditions bearable. It is not as if nothing has changed since 1947. Formal employment has increased, albeit marginally, and today is around 29 million or just 5% of total employment. Whilst women have benefited disproportionately, their share in formal employment increased inadequately from a low 15% in 1995 to a miserable 20% today.

Change is happening but if formal employment is to be enlarged for women, the State needs to intervene to make a difference in the next 10 years. Four initiatives are proposed:

First, government must not shy away from the “win-lose” option of pushing employment of women in the formal sector by statute at the expense of men. The private sector which has lower institutional and labour market rigidities, is already responding, on a strictly “value for money” basis to enlarge women employment. Since 1995 the formal private sector added 2.8 million jobs, of which 39% (1.1 million) went to women. Their share has increased from 20% in 1995 to 24% today.  

It is in public sector formal employment that more needs to be done. Public sector formal employment shrank by 2 million jobs since 1995 to 17.5 million today. Despite the shrinking pie of government jobs, jobs for women increased by 0.6 million to 3.3 million or 18% of total public sector employment: way behind their share in the private sector.

It will hurt men directly but government must reserve 50% of entry level positions for women across the board in the civilian cadres of government, including within the existing quotas for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, other backward caste, and minorities (a few states). Income based “brownie points” in selection and a “one-time quota benefit, not transferable to children” can serve to churn the ensuing benefit better.    

It is shameful that our leaders have been the most regressive. The 15th Lok Sabha was unable to agree on a quota of 30% for women in politics because of opposition from backward caste based parties, who continue to be male dominated. One hopes that the emerging “chatur-murti” of Amma, Bhenji, Didi and Sonia with a possible 170 votes between them, aided by the left’s indefatigable Brinda Karat shall bring this to fruition in the 15th Lok Sabha.

Second, continuing female infanticide and the resulting adverse gender ratio is a slap in the face of our social policy. Whilst the preference for male offspring is rooted in tradition and rituals, the perceived negative financial cost of getting a daughter married is also a major inhibitor. There is ample evidence today, including from neighboring Bangladesh, that conditional cash transfers result in significant improvements in the life cycle of social protection from infant immunization to maternal health and education.  Cash transfers substitute for the opportunity cost to the family of relieving the girl child from household chores (collecting wood and water, rending to livestock) and ensure that the girl child gets minimum levels of health care, nutrition and education. The UID (Aadhar Card) is a key instrument for plugging the leakages usually associated with cash transfers. One hopes that Nilikeni’s physical departure and the likely change in government do not kill this this worthy initiative.

Third, implementing institutional arrangements, already in the Constitution, such as decentralization of administrative and political powers to lower levels of government is a key driver of change. Participation rates of women increase dramatically when decisions are taken closer to home. The woman who is a tigress at home often transmutes into a compliant mouse in the workplace, to remain “below the male opprobrium radar”.

The average Indian woman looks for succor from just four public horrors; (1) the lack of public safety in the street and often also at home; (2) informal gender bars for education; (3) biased job recruitment and assessment and (4) rigid work environments, which do not recognizes their multiple roles as bread winner; home stabilizer and comforter. Their effective participation in the public space needs to fit in within this framework. Doing so, requires adapting national work and public participation practices to local norms and culture. This is impossible at the national level in heterogeneous India.

Fourth, technology is the biggest gender bender but the government does not use it strategically. Monitoring outcomes effectively and improving access to services are two sorely neglected areas. Policing in India continues to be a low tech, “danda” swinging profession. Why cannot an FIR be filed electronically, with a phone number attached for authentication, thereby putting the onus on the police to follow up with the complainant? Why are mixed gender police patrols, armed with smart phone access, to record and report crime and access the crime database, not visible to citizens? Why are blood samples not collected at home in rural areas by mobile agents of laboratories and reports sent electronically to users? Why are interactive phone based health and education counseling services, on the Tamil Nadu pattern, not scaled up nationally? Why do development babus still not have specific household specific, annual targets for the multiple social benefit schemes of government? Why do they have the discretion to fish for beneficiaries?

Gender bending goes beyond public exhortations for change. Role models of liberated upper crust women are non-contextual and often not actionable options for the average woman.

Changing the institutional structures and incentives which reinforce traditional gender roles is a precondition for achieving gender equity. Significant change is going to be tough for men of course, but they coined the slogan “when the going gets tough, the best get going”.

Hypocritical India

 

Image

Indians are affably argumentative (Amartya Sen, 2005). Less likably, the Indian State is intensely hypocritical. It remains very medieval despite its veneer of modernism.

Examples of medievalism abound. We value Indian lives very low. No minister has ever resigned because citizens, in their charge, starved to death or died due to lack of emergency medical aid or if large numbers of students fail to pass in public schools. Corruption is a leitmotif of even the simplest public transaction like lodging a First Information Report at a police station (this is something which should even be possible by email or sms or whatsapp); avoiding getting arrested for drunk driving; getting a copy of case records from the lower courts or seeking protection from physical harassment and assault.

The best illustration of lingering medievalism and nascent modernism is the conscious use of hypocrisy by the State, to keep alive the hope of change without disturbing the status quo. There are many such State hypocrisies but five major ones stand out.

The biggest hypocrisy is the Constitutional provision that religion does not matter for State policy formulation and execution. Everything points to a different truth. The Shah Bano episode (1986) is the best example of how religion and politics have been inseparable. In this case the Supreme Court granted maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman (as is the right of any Indian woman) but the government rescinded this progressive judgment through a perverse, new law to appease orthodox Muslim sentiment. Meanwhile, to placate orthodox Hindu sentiment, which was being fanned by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (a Hindu rights outfit), it also opened the gates of the disputed site of the Babri Masjid which had been locked by the government since 1885 to preserve the status quo on counter claims to possession rights by Muslims and Hindus. Incidentally 1885 is also the year the Indian National Congress was founded. By 1986 (a century later) the Congress was not averse to play the communal card with an eye to the 1989 elections.

Other more visible “red flags” of regressive religious politics are the low pan-Indian representation of Muslims in government; the increasing ghettoization of Muslims even in new urban areas; blatantly pro-Muslim or Hindu political parties and decreasing levels of productive social interaction between the two major communities since 1947. Let’s face it. The religious cleavage exists in an antagonistic form and is increasing. It is only once we accept this that we can get to talk about how to bridge it.

The second big hypocrisy is that all Indians are created equal. Democracy and the positive affirmation (reservations) policy have solidified caste much more than the dilution effect from urbanization. If Pandit Nehru saw Sardar Patel as a biased Hindu he would be shocked at the manner in which political leaders today pander to narrow interests of backward caste and Dalit vote banks. After religion, caste is the next most significant political identity of Indians. The majority of Indians wed within their caste and vote for caste candidates. Indians are not born equal. They struggle to overcome the inherited, rigid social and economic barriers of caste and very few succeed, despite the Constitution and a range of laws prohibiting caste based biases.

The third big hypocrisy (which we share with much of the World) is that women are treated equal to men. They are not and never have been. The good news here is that since this is an international problem, the state of play is fairly advanced. Policy, law and programs are working to empower women economically in the hope that social change will follow; to measure their levels of satisfaction; to assess results and to provide special protection to them in the transition period.

The fourth big hypocrisy is that poverty is reducing at a satisfactory rate. This is far from true. Even worse, asserting this statistically, as the government does, lulls us into believing that following the current path and simply doing more of what we do already, will get us to a poverty free India. It cannot.

Average per capita income needs to triple in real terms and inequality to reduce significantly before we can even claim to have found the correct direction. Some measurable indicators are a consistent growth above 8% per year; a more equal sharing between the rich and 70% of the rest, of the benefits of incremental growth (we don’t monitor this periodically) and the rate of job creation in the formal economy.

The fifth hypocrisy is that the existing governance architecture of Parliamentary Democracy is suitable for India. It is not. Both Parliament and Cabinet have ceased to play their intended role as checks on personal aggrandizement and protecting minority interests. This has been true for State Governments over the last three decades but over the past decade even the GOI Cabinet has become the poodle of Party bosses. The sanctity and effectiveness of Parliament is eroded by the behavior of lumpen elements, more familiar with brute force than reasoned argument or moral persuasion. Corruption vitiates executive decision making to the extent that the judiciary becomes the aam admi’s “de-facto government” for seeking redress.

How can this familiar tale of woe be altered?

First what is not measured and recorded cannot be dealt with. Enumerate caste/tribe and religion in the census so we know the numbers; the spatial distribution and their wellbeing. Map caste and religion data on a publicly available GIS down to the village and urban ward level so that government interventions can be calibrated to local social norms and results assessed by third parties. Assess poverty levels bi-annually using mobile based rapid data collection instruments to better relate schemes (like the Right to Food or the Right to Work) to poverty reduction outcomes.

Second review the existing incentive structures for diluting religion, caste, gender inequality, poverty and improving the functioning of the executive, parliament and judiciary.

Caste based affirmative action (reservations) clearly perpetuates an “us versus them” psychology. Diluting it by adding poverty criterion, requires more data and monitoring, but can lead to the dominance of more modern pressure groups like professional affiliations (farmers, business owners, employees), locational interests (Biharis or Mumbaikars) or ideological solidarity (environmentalists, big or small government advocates, gay rights advocates).

All government programs and projects should be evaluated for their poverty reduction potential before approval by the government and income enhancement targets fixed. Achievement against targets must be monitored by third parties with the results made public. This will reduce pork (roads to nowhere) and gold plating (capital heavy projects which do nothing for jobs-why not let private business do these?).

The Constitution should be revised to completely separate the Executive from Parliament. The PM and her deputy to be directly elected with minimum vote shares prescribed in each constituency to ensure inclusion. The ministerial executive team to be nominated by the PM and endorsed by the Parliament. The internal emergency provisions should similarly require the endorsement of parliament to protect state government autonomy from an aggressive PM. The 2014 elections are being fought in any case on the basis of “US President like” identities.

This simple change can ensure that the PM is popularly elected and is not just a “shoo-in”. It can also  improve the quality of MPs by getting rid of those who contest for Parliament seats (often by paying for them) only as an avenue for eventually getting into lucrative executive positions. Legislative ability requires skills in law and social sciences apart from a feel for the local interests an MP represents. Executive ability requires specialization and narrow experience. The system must present separate choices to the electorate and to those desiring to enter politics.

The bottom line is to transit from being an affable but hypocritical India to a more results oriented and honest India. In the modern world time is money and the long route to poverty reduction whilst changing incrementally is costly. Social stability is a merit good in the Indian plural context. But the price for social stability must be paid by the rich and not the poor or the marginalized.   

Delhi School Admissions; too much single malt

Image

Good intentions are never enough to frame good policies. Each new policy generates a host of incentives and therein lies the devil of unintended consequences. The new Lt. Governor in Delhi announced a new admissions policy for private schools in Delhi.

The policy intervenes in the school admissions market in two ways. First it reserves 35% of the available seats (5% for girls, 25% for the poor (ponderously termed in sarkari-hinglish as Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and 5% for the kids of employees).

Second, it prescribes the weights to be used for assessing a kid for admission; 70% is for those living within 6 km of a school; 20% is for a sibling in the same school; 5% is for an alumni parent; 5% for interstate transfer.

Any intervention by the State comes at the cost of distorted markets and efficiency losses. However, the modern State does intervene on grounds of promoting equity. In the case of admissions to private schools, state intervention to determine the rules is a border line case. Ideally, private unaided schools should face no restraints on their ability to manage. However, the State is so overwhelmingly present in India, by providing land to schools at cheap prices and other such goodies and our society so iniquitous, that only a Libertarian fundamentalist will question the need for state intervention.

The dramatic and very welcome change in the new policy is that school management no longer has a quota (earlier 20%) for itself. In effect, this means that the non-meritorious and well-connected or rich kids, who earlier paid-off the management through quid-pro-cos or cash and got admission under the management quota, will now have to look to Gurgaon, NOIDA or even further to get educated.  This courageous blow for merit and transparency, which has got all school managements in a twist, can only be welcomed.

The same cannot however be said for the new “local” kid advantage rule. Good schools, which make parents drool at the mouth, like Modern School, DPS and Sardar Patel Vidyalaya , to name only a few, are all located in rich and babu areas like Barakhamba Road, Humayun Road, Vasant Vihar, RK Puram and Lodhi Estate. The “local” kid advantage at a hefty 70% ensures a total wipe out for other applicants. Ergo the rich and the babus benefit. Nothing new here since privilege is enshrined in our culture.

What about the 25% reservation for EWS? Will not that ensure that rich and poor kids mingle and learn from each other? Certainly this is progressive but when combined with the “local kid advantage” it generates unintended consequences. Here is why.

In the rich and babu localities, for every one person in the house there are two persons in the “servant’s quarters” who generally work for peanuts in exchange for the significant privilege of a decent room in a prime locality. The ESW quota in the “good” schools will directly benefit this segment. One can even envisage people temporarily taking up such residence, at least on paper (as in the case of getting into the Rajya Sabha), just to get their kids admitted. The net result will be to enhance the already existing high premium on houses in these localities and crowd out other poor but meritorious kids in the rest of Delhi.

The LG would be well advised to revisit the “local kid advantage”, at the very least for ESW applicants, to allow the free flow of poor but meritorious kids to “good” schools within Delhi. Since schools in Delhi have no legal obligation to bus students to school, unlike the US, from where this rule seems to have been inspired, ESW applicants should be able to self-select what suits them best.

Similarly mindboggling is why kids, already having a sibling in a school or with alumni parents, should have a combined hefty 30% preference. What does this rule achieve except to encourage kids to free ride on their siblings and make kids complacent because their parents went to good schools? Such preferential treatment only induces rich parents to donate generously to schools, in the hope of a quid- pro-co. This is a blow against merit, against social change and in favour of privilege and must be dropped.

The third mind boggler is a 5% reservation for girls. This is a classic case of mindless gender equity overreach. Surely a better rule would have been to simply require that the admission list in a co-educational school should give preference to achieve a 40% representation of either gender. This would ensure that the co-educational character of the school is preserved (including by getting girls into schools) whilst minimizing the sacrifice of merit for equity. What if a school admission list already has 60% girls on merit? Should there be a further 5% reservation for girls on top of that, even though boys also seeking admission may be more meritorious than the girls seeking admission under the reserved quota? Why is that a social good?

Public policy is all about blending equity with efficiency as the LG knows well. The preference for paying lip service, to the single malt of equity, is not surprising in an election year, but well below par for Najeeb Jung.

 

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: