Report good, report middling

THE 2 books under review have established, dependable credentials, which is why they have the rare virtue of being eagerly awaited every year for additional insights on global developments. This year, the Human Development Report (HDR) introduces the somewhat controversial concept of human security; the World Development Report (WDR) focuses on infrastructure for development. If it is chrome-plated insights that you are looking for, the latter offers many more flashes.

HDR attempts to draw up an agenda for the World Summit for Social Development in March 1995, arguing that the concept of development cooperation needs to be broadened to reap the peace dividend. Amongst the catchy expressions used is a "20:20 compact" for human development. The idea is that developing countries should earmark 20 per cent of their budgets for human priority concerns and donors should raise their aid allocations for human priority goals to the same percentage. Nevertheless, ready wit does not add much to the analytical content of the report.

As soon as HDR is published, one of the first questions asked is: what is India's HDI (human development index) ranking now? It is not very flattering to note that it is a pathetic 135 out of 173 countries. Sri Lanka ranks 90, China 34 and Pakistan 132. Even bleaker is the fact that India's ranking according to per capita GNP is 147. In other words, India performs better, relatively speaking, on the human development front. Significantly, in 1991, 12 per cent of all imports were non-nuclear arms. To quote from the report: "India ordered 20 MIG 29 fighter aircraft from Russia at a cost that could have provided basic education to all the 15 million girls out of school."

But one of the prerequisites of all serious research is that the sources of the data used be provided. HDR flouts this convention with predictable nonchalance. What, for instance, is the source for life expectancy figures in 1992? Does this, therefore, mean that contorted extrapolations have been performed on historical series of data? At the very least, explanatory notes should have been appended.

In contrast, WDR offers impeccable authenticity. The focus of the report is on basic economic infrastructure like public utilities, public works and other transport sectors. The menu that WDR set out in terms of options for ownership and provision of infrastructure services is: public ownership and operation by an enterprise or department, public ownership with operation contracted to private parties, and regulated private ownership and operation.

One of the sidelights offered is a contrast between Wangala and Dalena, 2 villages in Karnataka. Both villages were poor and backward until a largescale irrigation project hugged Wangala into a canal network. Dalena's high elevation left it unirrigated. Canal irrigation directly benefited Wangala by promoting intensified cultivation, but Dalena had no such option. The villagers from Dalena reaped "indirect benefits" of the irrigation project by relocating and seeking jobs outside the village in public works departments and sugar mills; the village established itself as a service centre for the region.

Separate chapters in WDR concentrate on running public utilities along commercial principles, using markets to provide for infrastructure, the financing of needed investments and the setting of priorities, and implementing reform. These chapters are worthwhile reading; it is impossible to do justice to them in the course of a glancing critique.

For example, one particular table (6.3) cross-classifies the feasibility of private sector delivery according to infrastructure components. Take telecom as an instance: if both local and long distance services are private, the potential for cost recovery from users is high. But we should also remember that concern for equity is the prime reason for any public utility service.

Bibek Debroy was formerly associated with the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.