Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen have long discarded the Gujarat Model of growth in favor of a seemingly more equitable and inclusive model followed by the Bihar Govt.(under Nitish Kumar) and Union Govt(UPA I & II). Also, other economists-journalists have also lamented the so called Gujarat Model and heaved heavy praises on economy under Dr. Singh and P. Chidambaram. Planning commission has also stepped up the critique recently. I will not place the criticism by AAP here lest it lowers the discourse (They have already hijacked the tedious work of above authors just like the way they did with Gas prices issue when Mr. Gurudas Dasgupta was waging a lone battle without media support)
Here let me compare the indicators with a few of the model states : Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Bihar. These are states comparable in terms of area and income. Bihar is included as it has become the recent favorite of all welfare economists due its turn around story.
The common criticisms against the Gujarat Model are:
- Incidence of malnourishment in Gujarat.
- Gender Inequality (as reflected in Infant Mortality Rate and Female Literacy)
- Unequal benefits of growth
Since these matters have been brought up by economists of such eminence, I would presume that they certainly did a cause-effect study with multiple dimensions accounting for current social and economic indicators. It is a different story that they being colored by ideological preferences chose to gloss over some obvious facts before stating their conclusions in public. Hence my answer is not to them but to the public whom they wish to provide results on a platter.
Geographical factors- 2/3rd of Gujarat is arid/ semi-arid.(Rainfall less than 60cm annually). Despite this, the govt has made arrangements for drinking water as well as irrigation in Kutchh region. Compare that to any of the above states where water is scarce (MH, Telangana, TN(partly)) or abundant (Kerala, Bihar, Seemandhra). Only AP and TN are marginally better off than Gujarat here with access to safe drinking water in 90.5% & 92.5% households against Gujarat's 90.3%.
Demographics of Gujarat- Among the above states, Gujarat has the highest Tribal population(15%, A.P. has 9%). That will partly explain the backwardness in indices of health and education, especially for women. Since health and education indices amongst tribals are comparatively low, averaging out takes place in a composite measure. It goes without saying that it calls for more concentrated efforts in mainstreaming them.
Malnourishment & Inequality & Gender Disparity- 44% of Guj kids are malnourished. But in which demography are they prevalent?- tribal, rural or urban areas? And what is the class incidence. If we have the data, we can determine to what extent does malnourishment depend on culture and on economic deprivation. After all, sub-Saharan Africa has much less levels of malnourishment even though its economic indicators are nowhere near Uttar Pradesh even.
Also, given the fact that income distribution in Gujarat, as measured by Gini coefficient(0.24-Rural and 0.28-Urban) is far more equitable than any of the above states and much less than the national average of 0.28 and 0.36 respectively, the myth of unequal distribution is also shattered. In fact, Gujarat saw a decline in Lorenz ratio from 2009-10 to 2011-12.
That leaves the possibility that state intervention in Gujarat in distribution of health services is not quite effective as that of TN or Kerala. Let's evaluate that.
Now, for Infant Mortality Rate(IMR) the drop has been better (48 in 2009 to 41 in 2011)as compared to All India indicators(50 to 44). But still comparisons with Kerala and TN are not possible.
Yes, the sex ratio in Gujarat is still less than All India level(918 against 940), but I fail to understand what major impact can a Chief Minister have in that. The Hindu ran an editorial comparing two events- Modi's marital 'record' and poor female health indicators. Anyhow, Female life expectancy in Gujarat has risen more compared to above states and is fast approaching them.
One thing which is certain is access to health facilities is crucial if the negative effects of malnourishment are to be mitigated. The State govt's health insurance scheme, Mukhyamantri Amrutam(launched in 2012) has a decent record of enrollment of 54% of BPL population (Only AP's Rajiv Aarogyashri (launched in 2007) has a higher enrollment of 75%)
As far as literacy rates go, Gujarat has seen a jump of 10 percentage points in the last decade(69.2% to 79.3).
The point is, no doubt the achievements of southern states have been stunning, but to dismiss Gujarat Model as insufficiently sensitive to social indicators is willful ignorance.
Comparison of expenditure on health as a percentage of total expenditure shows inconclusive results. All the above states have an increasing trends in health expenditure, but if it was the only determinant, Uttar Pradesh, which has the highest (12%) spend, would be the healthiest state. If there is one govt. which has shown a decreasing trend in health expenditure(as a % of total expenditure) - It's our very 'inclusive' Union govt.- probably due to slash in expenditure necessary to contain the deficit.
But let's look at the reason why these govts are able to provide a better healthcare environment even though it looks like Gujrat govt should be more effluent.
Further, Kerala does not even have any industrial base to boast of so that its revenues can be justified. The answer lies in two things (1) The LDF-UDF governments in Kerala and DMK-AIADMK govts. in TN have competitively doled out some welfare measures too along with freebies. As a result their debt comparison with Gujarat govt does not even merits mention, & (2) The expatriate community remittances- Kerala and TN account for 3lakh of the 5.5 lakh workers which are cleared every year. Of the total Rs.60 billion, these states account for almost half (and along with Punjab and UP, almost 3/4th). This means that without having to worry much about provision of jobs to people, these states can concentrate on social issues. Otherwise, what explains that Kerala being the most literate state for decades has the highest unemployment rate? It's not solely because of large number of seekers, but also because of inability of state to generate employment opportunities. And this exactly is the Gujarat MODEL of development - To have fair balance of spend on job creation and social schemes.
Of course, no defense of poor health indicators should be used to justify them. These reasons are not a pretext to laxity in implementation. These are just the reflection of a bigger picture of what the Gujarat govt under Modi has been able to achieve due to its good governance standards. As is evident from the data above, Gujarat is not the No.1 state it is made out to be by some NaMoniac chauvinists. Rather it is a state that has achieved high growth with improvement in social indicators and is on its way to be placed better in sectors where it has lagged in past.
Now lastly, a comparison with Bihar. Since metric based comparison would be an exercise in unfairness, let's concentrate on the issues. The argument in favor is that it has achieved more equitable growth due to its spend on health and educational schemes. Really? Nitish govt has been in power for only last 8 years and for these indicators to prove their worth, it will take considerably more time. So why is Bihar the fastest growing state in the country? I guess they forgot to ask Nitish and rather decided to sell their 'differences with Modi' packaged as 'Success Story of Bihar'. The simple reason is maintenance of law and order in Bihar. It has had huge impact in bringing hidden money in circulation due to changing spending appetite. Also, migration from Bihar is at all time high. and the migrants(mostly outcastes) have purchased land in their native villages at exorbitant prices. As far as industry is concerned, I have no knowledge if there is one. Infrastructure wise, Yes- National Highways have prospered (or planned) but state projects have only undergone a shila-nyaas and nothing more.
So let's debate more on these issues directly, rather than venting out ideological differences in the garb of manufactured, cherry-picked indices. It serves no purpose.
Here let me compare the indicators with a few of the model states : Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Bihar. These are states comparable in terms of area and income. Bihar is included as it has become the recent favorite of all welfare economists due its turn around story.
The common criticisms against the Gujarat Model are:
- Incidence of malnourishment in Gujarat.
- Gender Inequality (as reflected in Infant Mortality Rate and Female Literacy)
- Unequal benefits of growth
Since these matters have been brought up by economists of such eminence, I would presume that they certainly did a cause-effect study with multiple dimensions accounting for current social and economic indicators. It is a different story that they being colored by ideological preferences chose to gloss over some obvious facts before stating their conclusions in public. Hence my answer is not to them but to the public whom they wish to provide results on a platter.
Geographical factors- 2/3rd of Gujarat is arid/ semi-arid.(Rainfall less than 60cm annually). Despite this, the govt has made arrangements for drinking water as well as irrigation in Kutchh region. Compare that to any of the above states where water is scarce (MH, Telangana, TN(partly)) or abundant (Kerala, Bihar, Seemandhra). Only AP and TN are marginally better off than Gujarat here with access to safe drinking water in 90.5% & 92.5% households against Gujarat's 90.3%.
Demographics of Gujarat- Among the above states, Gujarat has the highest Tribal population(15%, A.P. has 9%). That will partly explain the backwardness in indices of health and education, especially for women. Since health and education indices amongst tribals are comparatively low, averaging out takes place in a composite measure. It goes without saying that it calls for more concentrated efforts in mainstreaming them.
Malnourishment & Inequality & Gender Disparity- 44% of Guj kids are malnourished. But in which demography are they prevalent?- tribal, rural or urban areas? And what is the class incidence. If we have the data, we can determine to what extent does malnourishment depend on culture and on economic deprivation. After all, sub-Saharan Africa has much less levels of malnourishment even though its economic indicators are nowhere near Uttar Pradesh even.
Also, given the fact that income distribution in Gujarat, as measured by Gini coefficient(0.24-Rural and 0.28-Urban) is far more equitable than any of the above states and much less than the national average of 0.28 and 0.36 respectively, the myth of unequal distribution is also shattered. In fact, Gujarat saw a decline in Lorenz ratio from 2009-10 to 2011-12.
That leaves the possibility that state intervention in Gujarat in distribution of health services is not quite effective as that of TN or Kerala. Let's evaluate that.
Now, for Infant Mortality Rate(IMR) the drop has been better (48 in 2009 to 41 in 2011)as compared to All India indicators(50 to 44). But still comparisons with Kerala and TN are not possible.
Yes, the sex ratio in Gujarat is still less than All India level(918 against 940), but I fail to understand what major impact can a Chief Minister have in that. The Hindu ran an editorial comparing two events- Modi's marital 'record' and poor female health indicators. Anyhow, Female life expectancy in Gujarat has risen more compared to above states and is fast approaching them.
One thing which is certain is access to health facilities is crucial if the negative effects of malnourishment are to be mitigated. The State govt's health insurance scheme, Mukhyamantri Amrutam(launched in 2012) has a decent record of enrollment of 54% of BPL population (Only AP's Rajiv Aarogyashri (launched in 2007) has a higher enrollment of 75%)
As far as literacy rates go, Gujarat has seen a jump of 10 percentage points in the last decade(69.2% to 79.3).
The point is, no doubt the achievements of southern states have been stunning, but to dismiss Gujarat Model as insufficiently sensitive to social indicators is willful ignorance.
Comparison of expenditure on health as a percentage of total expenditure shows inconclusive results. All the above states have an increasing trends in health expenditure, but if it was the only determinant, Uttar Pradesh, which has the highest (12%) spend, would be the healthiest state. If there is one govt. which has shown a decreasing trend in health expenditure(as a % of total expenditure) - It's our very 'inclusive' Union govt.- probably due to slash in expenditure necessary to contain the deficit.
But let's look at the reason why these govts are able to provide a better healthcare environment even though it looks like Gujrat govt should be more effluent.
Further, Kerala does not even have any industrial base to boast of so that its revenues can be justified. The answer lies in two things (1) The LDF-UDF governments in Kerala and DMK-AIADMK govts. in TN have competitively doled out some welfare measures too along with freebies. As a result their debt comparison with Gujarat govt does not even merits mention, & (2) The expatriate community remittances- Kerala and TN account for 3lakh of the 5.5 lakh workers which are cleared every year. Of the total Rs.60 billion, these states account for almost half (and along with Punjab and UP, almost 3/4th). This means that without having to worry much about provision of jobs to people, these states can concentrate on social issues. Otherwise, what explains that Kerala being the most literate state for decades has the highest unemployment rate? It's not solely because of large number of seekers, but also because of inability of state to generate employment opportunities. And this exactly is the Gujarat MODEL of development - To have fair balance of spend on job creation and social schemes.
Of course, no defense of poor health indicators should be used to justify them. These reasons are not a pretext to laxity in implementation. These are just the reflection of a bigger picture of what the Gujarat govt under Modi has been able to achieve due to its good governance standards. As is evident from the data above, Gujarat is not the No.1 state it is made out to be by some NaMoniac chauvinists. Rather it is a state that has achieved high growth with improvement in social indicators and is on its way to be placed better in sectors where it has lagged in past.
Now lastly, a comparison with Bihar. Since metric based comparison would be an exercise in unfairness, let's concentrate on the issues. The argument in favor is that it has achieved more equitable growth due to its spend on health and educational schemes. Really? Nitish govt has been in power for only last 8 years and for these indicators to prove their worth, it will take considerably more time. So why is Bihar the fastest growing state in the country? I guess they forgot to ask Nitish and rather decided to sell their 'differences with Modi' packaged as 'Success Story of Bihar'. The simple reason is maintenance of law and order in Bihar. It has had huge impact in bringing hidden money in circulation due to changing spending appetite. Also, migration from Bihar is at all time high. and the migrants(mostly outcastes) have purchased land in their native villages at exorbitant prices. As far as industry is concerned, I have no knowledge if there is one. Infrastructure wise, Yes- National Highways have prospered (or planned) but state projects have only undergone a shila-nyaas and nothing more.
So let's debate more on these issues directly, rather than venting out ideological differences in the garb of manufactured, cherry-picked indices. It serves no purpose.
