Amartya Sen: 'You need an educated, healthy workforce to sustain economic development'

To reclaim a high growth trajectory, prioritise expenditure on education and healthcare instead of ill-directed subsidies and tax exemptions, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen tells Forbes India at the launch of An Uncertain Glory: India and its contradictions, a book he’s co-authored with Jean Dreze

Published: Jul 26, 2013
Amartya Sen: 'You need an educated, healthy workforce to sustain economic development'
Image: Amit Verma
Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen

During the last two or three years, India has seen a lot of outrage, like Anna Hazare’s demonstrations or where lot of people came out on the streets of Delhi to protest against the brutal rape of a young woman. Did things change as you were writing the book? Especially, did the democratic response in India change?
It didn’t change. It confirmed some of my hopes and it confirmed some of my concerns.

The hope included that people could, on the basis of learning more about what’s happening to another human being’s life, take a sufficiently firm interest to do something about it, and to organise and agitate—which is what happened following the 16th December incident.

Second, that it led to the quick setting up of the [Justice] Verma Commission, itself a major indication that time had come for the government to listen to this kind of thing and they did it very quickly. All that is a great achievement and it confirms the power of public reasoning and public agitation.

The limitation that you named—and it is not a serious limitation—is something that we still have to think about. The Verma Commission did emphasise sexual trafficking of young girls, which is very big in India and big business too. And that the Verma Commission report and the Act [Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013] did mention it is a criminal offence anyway. But, in order for the criminal offence to be actually used to change the system, that didn’t happen. Public consciousness required to be raised on that topic. The fact that Jyoti—as we know her name now or Nirbhaya as she used to be called—even though she came from a humble family background economically, the fact that she is a medical  student training to be physiotherapist made it a lot easier for the middle classes to sympathise with her predicament. And the predicament of sexual trafficking is a lot harder [to sympathise with] because mostly the people who are affected happen to come from much poorer families.

Rape is an easier issue to politicise than sexual trafficking. So that way the harder problem still remains to be engaged. So yes I was encouraged—so far so good—but I would like a bit more. Quite a bit more.

Before I get to some of the more substantive issues that you mention in the book, there is—and I guess you would be asked this time and again here (in India)—in my opinion a dumbing down of the development debate to a very simplistic Left-versus-Right kind of approach, which is definitely not the truth. Can you elucidate when you say (in the book) that how we make use of the democratic process is the substantive element and not ‘Left vs Right’ or how much private sector involvement should there be?
I guess I am usually classified as part of the Left [laughs] even though I have been very critical of the Communist Party (Marxist) position, which I often voted for in the past. So, I guess, probably I would be classified, with some justice, as being Left. On the other hand, in support of my argument, I have drawn on the arguments of many people who might not be on the Left at all.

I think the Left [front in India] was, unfortunately, not clear-headed on sufficient opposition to the licence raj. Contrary to what you might read in other one or two papers, I have always been quite opposed to the Licence Raj—that did not seem to be the right way of pursuing anything.

The Left was also relatively soft on education.

A lot of people are neither particularly Left nor particularly Right. It’s interesting that DFID [Department or International Development], which is part of the UK government, was pointing to the need for education more strongly than the Indian government seemed to be doing [laughs].

Similarly, Milton Friedman. His economics is not mine. Nevertheless, the fact that when he came to India [in 1955] he did write the report where he criticised the government of India for putting too much focus on physical capital and too little on human capital—education and healthcare—which is very much in line with what we are arguing. Do we feel happy to quote him? Yes, indeed. Did we quote him? Yes, we did.

Similarly, being secular is very important for me. Now, some of the secular leadership, with the greatest of the imagination, have not been democratic in the normal sense. Take the example of [Singapore’s first prime minister] Lee Kwan Yew. I think very few people have the record of the comparable imagination of Lee Kwan Yew in constructing a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural society in Singapore.

Do I think there is something that Mr Modi could learn from Lee Kwan Yew? The answer is yes. And it’s not because Lee Kwan Yew is a model of democratic practice [chuckles]. And if it came up today, and I sincerely believe that Mr Modi won a democratic election, I would be on Modi’s side rather than on Lee Kwan Yew’s. On the other hand, when it comes to the treatment of minorities, I would be on Yew’s side. And I would add that democracy is not only about elections but also about minority rights. And I think, certainly in terms of the ethnic question, there is a huge amount to be learnt from Lee Kwan Yew. Incidentally, if you learn about the Lee Kwan Yew’s and Singapore’s story, you will learn about the importance of education and healthcare being very important for business as well.

So I have no hesitation in learning from people whose overall political position I don’t agree with. But that entire resource would be denied to us if we went by ‘Left’ and ‘Right.’ We have to assess argument and accept wisdom no matter which quarter it comes from.

You have talked about the impatience of the (Indian) elite [and held them responsible for not caring enough for those less privileged]. You quoted Economic and Political Weekly’s (EPW) editorial and said it was the ‘misplaced confidence’ of the elite that made them impatient. But is it just because of ‘misplaced confidence’ or is it due to the frustration that existing, government-based systems of service delivery or education or health are so creaky that one is convinced that that is not going to work anymore.
But that is a different point. Ram Reddy [of EPW] is saying—which we are in agreement with—is that they [the government] feel very impatient because they somehow know the answer and the answer is to give more concession to business and growth rate will come back again. And they don’t ask the question, ‘could there be something foundationally wrong?’ Namely, you need an educated healthy workforce to help sustain economic development. Their view that we can fix everything with clever commercial policies, I think, would end in a bigger mistake.

On the other hand, there is also the case that there is a tradition in India, even among the business community, to think about the broader social connection.

We quote Jamsetji Tata arriving in Jamshedpur and stating that he has to be not only building a factory but he also has to act as a municipality providing free health care and free education. That’s an Indian vision too. And that is in line with [what happened in] Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore and China. And we haven’t followed that, and it is quite an unfortunate mistake in the Indian case.

So what Ram Reddy was writing about was immediate self-interest because having an educated, healthy labour force is enormously important for the business community. And you have to be very narrow-minded and partially blind in order to just concentrate on a commercial advantage and not a long-term advantage.

So it is the priority of the present over the long-term vision that I am worried about.

Somebody I was talking to in the industry was saying that when you say “constructive use of public resources” in the book, his argument would be that instead of spending over Rs 1.5 lakh crore that we have done over the last 6 years on the NREGA, you could have put the money into skill development. That would have allowed the rural youth to become employable and take part in the larger growth story instead of giving them just doles.

I think there is substance in that argument. This is one of the points where Jean and I did have a disagreement. And I did think that the argument in favour of educational expenditure was so much stronger than the [expenditure on] employment.

But there is some mistake in that thinking too, and it is this: In comparing these two as choices when there are many other choices left in financing education.

Consider two alternatives, One is you (want to) spend money X in education and spend money X in NREGA. That is 2X when you have just 1X to spend. And [one option is] you cut down on one of the many other subsidies [to allow you to spend the 2X], like 2 percent of the GDP being absorbed by electricity even though one-third of the Indians don’t have power connection. You have got fertiliser subsidies, cooking gas subsidies, you have no taxes on jewellery and gold imports.  

The second alternative is cut out NREGA, have only education and (continue to) keep electricity and fertiliser subsidies.

Which one will be better? I prefer the former because the benefits are going to the poor there. And you do this at the cost of the subsidies from which the relatively better-off middle classes benefit like they do today.

Regarding healthcare, the view in the top bureaucracy as well as in the Planning Commission is that the government provisioning of health is not going to work in this country. We have over 65 years of experience to show that. So let’s go for RSBY (Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana), where the government simply provides the insurance (and healthcare itself is provided by private players).

When people say it hasn’t worked, I think they make a mistake. It hasn’t worked in some states in India; it has worked quite well in many others.

I never regarded Kerala to be a ‘model’ but is Kerala a good example of public service working in healthcare? Yes. So is Tamil Nadu and by and large Himachal Pradesh. So when you are faced with questions of this kind, an empirical scientist has to ask the question, “Why is it working in one place but not in the other?”

And not only working well but in a way that doesn’t eliminate the opportunity of doing it through other means. For example, in Kerala now, over 60 percent of healthcare is provided by the private sector. That wasn’t the case earlier. Those who say Kerala always had that make a mistake just as those who say Kerala was always rich.

I remember, 40 years ago while writing about Kerala, being told that the Kerala growth model is unsustainable because it is trying to spend money that it did not have. And my argument that this way (i.e., by spending upfront on improving education and healthcare) they will also generate more income was dismissed as naïve wishful thinking. Now, Kerala is one of the richest Indian states. But now their argument has changed: Because Kerala is rich, it can afford to spend it [on education and healthcare].

But the question is, “how did they become rich?”

The same is true of China or Costa Rica or Japan and Korea; they became rich by a procedure in the economic stages where they had human capability development combined with the skilled use of the market economy.

So I think when people say that [expenditure on human development] has not worked, I think they are not describing what has happened in India. We have to learn from places where it has actually worked.

Show More
Post Your Comment
Required
Required, will not be published
All comments are moderated
  • A.n. Saripalli

    We seldom learn from history. If we did, after Vietnam, Iraq would not have happened. So, no point in ogling Costa Rica, China, Japan and Korea or for that matter our very own kerala thanks to the left. The Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has always been a patriot at heart. But to be able to hear sane advice, we need to have ears that are open and functioning. What happened to the sane advice of another great Nobel Laureate Madiba Mandela to the Senior Bush. It did fall on deaf ears and the result is there for the world to see ever since and the poor citizens of Iraq will struggle for the next two decades to be back where they were at the turn of this century. For meaningful change to take place, you need selfless men of strong will at the top with a commitment to see change happen. Sadly that is missing. The Lancet series of papers on health in India and the NCE Edutech Report \"Rhetoric v/s Reality\" have brought these issues about the Government\'s failing by many a mile in its own commitment to invest 6% and 3% of GDP on education and health respectively. How\'s this for Government\'s commitment as stated on page 63 of the Edutech Report - A Model School programme with the aim of establishing 6000 high quality model schools to be started in 2008-09 with a proposed allocation of Rs. 650 crores for the new scheme. Clearly this was not intended in the name of quality education. This is rather a state run privatization of school in the name of quality education. Therefore the Government intends to build 6,000 schools at a cost of Rs.6,500 million i.e. Rs.1.083 million per school and at present construction cost of around Rs. 12,000 per sq.mt. it will be around 90 sq mts. Now, you can get an idea of the size of their model school and their thinking on what they mean by high quality education. Whatever happened to the good old Primary Health Centers. They have all vanished. Its a vicious cycle. Public cite poor service for not visiting a health center and the Government cites poor attendance for shutting it. It defies logic. Why would someone not want to use something if it was functioning. Are they not using the Railways? Now it seems we have got a great savior in Aadhaar enabled cash transfer scheme that will with its magic take care of all needs of the poor viz. hunger, clothing, shelter, education, health etc. and we do not need any Government run schools, health centres, PDS ration shops and in time we will just dish out money and ask them to care of themselves and be at the mercy of the private sector and our Government\'s job will be to frame laws to enforce the private sector to comply with taking care of the needs of the marginalized. The only hitch is when we do not have the mechanism (or should we say moral will) in place to check leakages when we are in direct control of the sectors, it will be stupid and naïve to think that we will have the mechanism to enforce these social equity laws. Two decades down the line, we will realize our folly and we will have to start from scratch and the Government that does that then will receive kudos for their vision only to be reminded by an old man that he had seen all these in his time but thanks to some great intellectual vision of leaders of his time they had vanished. MNREGA was a great concept but it lacked a spirit of development and asset creation. They could have used the MNREGA funds to supply agricultural labor to farmers or construct schools and health centres and staffing them instead of frittering away on schemes where no tangible asset creation takes place leaving no trail even for a meaningful audit. If MNREGA targeted agriculture, education and health, we would atleast have taken care of the basics for a sustainable rural growth by making sure we have an army of nourished, healthy and educated workforce.

    on Sep 17, 2013
  • Anomitra Bhattacharya

    Thank you Prof. Sen for your wise words and vision for India. When you started work on gender issues in India long back, people on both the left and right criticized you, but you were proved correct in the long run. Your present vision for India similarly lays down the path for a stronger India of the future. When I visited the Nobel Prize website some years back, I remember seeing a sentence which struck me as being profound - \"These are people whose work made first people laugh and later made them think\" Prof. Sen, you have certainly made us think with your clarity and profundity of your work.

    on Jul 27, 2013
    • Arijit Das

      Loved the statement made in the Nobel Prize website. It\'s sad that people here in India misunderstand Dr. Sen so much in spite of his colossal contribution to the field of economics. I sincerely wish, the saying in the website is proven true in this case as well.

      on Jul 28, 2013
  • Dr.A.jagadeesh

    Great story.

    on Jul 27, 2013
The World's Most Influential Celebrities
When CEO's Get a Pay Cut