Getting a hang of the Cs and Ps of governance in Gujarat

The model is a relevant one for India at large

The social, economic and internal security performance of Gujarat since the late 1990s has been favourably assessed by nearly all objective and serious researchers and observers, whether domestic or international.

Among major organisations, the Reserve Bank of India, Planning Commission, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation and Deutsche Bank have ranked the state highly in socio-economic and infrastructure performance.

There is common consensus that poor quality, low accessibility, and economic inefficiencies associated with goods and services provided by the public sector are primarily responsible for the average Indian household’s budget outlays not getting translated into commensurate welfare gains.

Gujarat has consciously embarked upon being an exception to this. As a result, for comparable incomes, the welfare levels of households in Gujarat can be expected to be higher than the all-India average.

Addressing internal security concerns of the citizens of Gujarat is also relevant. It is well known that anti-social elements, regardless of the community they come from, primarily victimise members of their own community. All communities, therefore, appreciate effective provision of this public good.

In the December 2007 elections, the BJP is reported to have obtained 45.3% of the total votes of tribal communities, nearly a third of the total Dalit votes, and nearly a quarter of the Muslim votes. While a direct connection is difficult to establish, Gujarat’s conscious efforts to be an exception may well have played a role in the voting decisions of these groups.

In spite of the above, there appears to be an inexplicable lack of curiosity on the part of the media as well as the states with below-average growth records to analyse Gujarat’s socio-economic policies and its governance characteristics.

The essence of the Gujarat model of governance (GMG) may be characterised as comprising three Cs (competence, corruption-aversion, and consistency), and two Ps (performance-orientation and public-private partnership management skills).

Competence: The governance and management challenges facing modern societies are complex. Competition for allocation of economic activities and for utilising knowledge and talent of individuals is intense. In selecting ministers, party candidates, bureaucrats, and managers of public agencies and enterprises, competence should be preferred.

Mere loyalty to a personality or a party should not be a substitute for competence.
Open acknowledgment of the need for competence by all political parties, therefore, would be a good start.

The Gujarat government appears to have recognised the need for competence. It has made some progress, but this needs to be sustained, broadened, and institutionalised.
Corruption aversion:

This characteristic has been most effectively summed up by Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi’s apt and highly credible phase, “khato nathi, khava deto nathi.” It is difficult to convey the emotional strength of this Gujarati phrase in English, but it connotes a strong aversion to being involved in corrupt practices, or being surrounded by those who are corrupt.

Even the critics of Modi, such as the Wall Street Journal (editorial, December 11, 2007), acknowledge that he has attempted to tackle public sector corruption, which is correctly regarded as a cancer harming Indian polity, economy and society.

Consistency: This characteristic requires that the policy decisions, administrative actions and the political pronouncements be consistent with each other. Lofty procurements, without any effort to implement them, are no substitute for credible achievements.

At a national level, one of the many examples of inconsistency is provided by the Rs 12,000 crore National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). As reported in the blogosphere, The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has found that barely 3.2% of the registered household could avail 100 days’ employment between February 2006 and March 2007.

Such expensive schemes, giving meagre returns, have not taken into account the opportunity cost borne by the taxpayers at large. This reveals a lack of consistency. Many more examples can be cited at all levels of government.

In sharp contrast, the Gujarat government has ensured effective implementation of its rural electrification programme, provided Narmada water to the traditionally water-starved Kutch (though currently only for drinking), and brought about a reduction in the backlog of legal cases through devices such as night courts.

Performance: Socio-economic, infrastructure, and internal security achievements of the Gujarat government would not have come about without insistence on performance at all levels. This required an enabling environment, including investments in technological and organisational capabilities.

Gujarat has been building such capabilities (as evidenced by video conferencing facilities with district collectors and modern budgeting and financial accounting systems). Accountability for performance is also needed.

Public-private-partnership management skills: These are needed for two reasons. First, both markets and governments are social institutions, and therefore have strengths and limitations. Instead of endlessly debating the merits of each on ideological grounds, there should be awareness that both are needed in performing a given task.

The key is therefore to find an appropriate balance in a given situation.

Second, partnership implies that each side brings something of value to the activity of enterprise. In the 21st century, such partnerships may involve a mixture of domestic and international players.

This requires the public sector to bring something of real and sustainable economic value and make efforts to continuously enhance its capabilities.

The experience of Gujarat during the last decade suggests recognition of both these aspects. The government has, for example, been involved in such partnerships in ports and other infrastructure, and in health care (resulting in reduced maternal mortality). It is also assisting in setting up new educational institutions, and in promoting knowledge-based agricultural practices. Reducing technological gaps between different sectors is an effective way to tackle inequalities.

In conclusion, the Gujarat model of governance has a strong claim to be more relevant for the 21st century India than the existing poor quality of development and public policy debates in the country. The Indian society, polity and economy can no longer afford to ignore the need for more relevant governance model if it is to achieve former President Kalam’s vision of a knowledge-based developed society by 2020.

sppasher@nus.edu.sg