The government has so far being shouldering primary responsibility for social sector development with varying degree of success given the resource and implementation constraints. The changed scenario in wake of liberalisation and privatisation requires that the state should not only monitor enforcement of the rules of fair play in key privatised sector but also ensure adequate allocations for social sector. Liberalization may mean erosion and sometimes elimination of state institutions in social sector. This could be perilous for a nation that has pushed equity and social justice as equity important a goal as economic growth. Such a social damage could itself frustrate economic objectives.

PERHAPS NO other time would have been more opportune for rethinking social sector development in India than at present. The quickening pace of change in the national economy since the introduction of economics reforms in 1991 has caught many of the agencies and institutions concerned with social development unawares. Liberalization of economy, increasing Privatization and Globalization (LPG) have certainly brought about structural changes which have led to faster economic growth. It has also been realized, more than ever before, that sustained growth requires that the nation first achieves basic threshold on a number of fronts apart from sound economic governance. These infrastructural facilities like water supply, sanitation, housing, roads and other essential connectives. If the nation falls short on one or more of these thresholds either wholly, or in particular parts, it shall tend to fall into a social under – development trap, making sustained economic growth unlikely.

However, contrary to this view, a widely supported assumption is recently gaining ground that once economic fundamentals are corrected, social issues will resolves themselves on their own accord: dynamic, well functioning market will not just create wealth it would also resolves problems of social sector. This assumption could be very dangerous for a nation that has so far pursued equity and social justice as equally important goals as economic growth. Conscious abandonment of the policy which entrusted the responsibility on the state to address the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged and consequent dismantling of State – supported institutions could directly hit the lives of millions of people adversely. The possibility of equity marginalisation of the poor and disadvantaged sections of the population could be disastrous for the nation that has yet a task ahead to lift nearly one fifth of its population above poverty line. LPG related reforms would certainly require policy initiatives and cutbacks in welfare services that have the potential to affect the poor. Advocates of adjustment assume that these setbacks would be temporary – that short – term ‘costs’ could be offset against enormous long – term economic gain. What they do not take into account is that social damage could itself frustrated economic objectives. In this context, unambiguous and unequivocal formulation of a new policy for social sector is the need of the hour.

The purpose of development is to bring about improvement in the quality of peoples’ lives by expanding their choices, freedom and dignity. One of the major areas of social development in India is eradication of poverty. Poverty involves much more than restrictions imposed by lack of income. It also entails lack of basic capabilities to led full, creative lives. Such deprivations distinguish human poverty from income poverty. Social sector development seeks to address both income poverty as well as human poverty. While economic growth is necessary for increased public spending on social sector development, it is hardly sufficient. If sufficient investment in social sector is neglected or there is discrimination against the vulnerable sections among population groups, this will weaken the potential benefits that overall economic growth can provide for meeting social development goals. This may lead to what Human Development Reports say ‘ruthless growth’² – growth that does not reach poor people, either because governments do not use additional revenue to invest in the social development needs.

India and the various States of the Union have consistently invested nearly one fourth of the aggregate public expenditure for social sector development. Such conscious state intervention in the last five decades has certainly brought about dramatic expansion of infrastructure facilities and has created trained human resource pool to provide universal access to elementary, wage-employment and self-employment opportunities etc. Institutions like Panchayati Raj and Co-operatives have taken roots to facilitate participations of people in decision-making at the grassroots level that affects their community or guide the course of their lives. Special programmes for targeted efforts to bring about faster upliftment of socially and economically weaker sections including those listed in the specially and economically weaker sections including those listed in the specific schedules in the constitution have remarkably expanded opportunities for socio-economic development of depressed castes, tribes, classes, minorities and women. The investment in social sector has certainly been much lower than the desired level. In addition, ‘outcomes’ have not matched the outlays. However, there have been discernible achievements, at least in some parts of the country and in some specific sectors. There has been notable reduction in incidence of poverty from nearly 50 per cent in the 1950s to less than 30 per cent by 2000.AD. Literacy rates have increased form 18.3 per cent in 1951 to 64.8 per cent in 2001. Other social indicators have shown similar improvement.

At least in parts of the country like Kerala and few other states, there has been remarkable accomplishment in various social indicators and Kerala stands out as a ‘ model ‘ among Indian states demonstrating what ‘ out comes’ could be achieved out of the present levels of ‘ outlay .’ The sharp contrast between the so-called BIMARU states (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) and Kerala has attracted serious academic interest and concern Authors like jean Dreze  and Amartya Sen have emphasized the “complementarily between economic incentives and social opportunities in generating fast and participatory growth’’, which operates both ways. They have advocated primary emphasis on social sector quoting examples of countries like South Korea and post-reform China. The importance of focused public action and general political interest in deprivation of large sections of Indian population in order to bring about faster progress in social sector cannot be denied, as has been prescribed by such authors. However, it would perhaps be unfair to evaluate the progress made by independent Indian in social sector as ‘’terrible overall record’’.³

Undoubtedly the persistence of endemic deprivation⁴ in many party of Indian has generated social tensions that development policies have failed to tackle head on. Instead of addressing such issues, currently there has been complacency in some quarters that LPG would be the panacea for all problems in social sector. This complacency has also been used as a convenient alibi to avoid social sector responsibilities. Recent events in many countries have demonstrated with awful clarity the depth of this fallacy-and its catastrophic consequences.

Not just Retrieval

In this overall perspective, there are few significant issues that need to be addressed regarding the future of social sector development in Indian. Quite obviously, fundamental structural changes in the economy since 1991 have given rise to a new syndrome that urgently necessitates a paradigm change in the social sector police. Firstly, the comparatively unsatisfactory progress in social sector in the last five decades is not just a question of lost time-of trying to retrieve the missed opportunities. The problem is more fundamental. One of the basic reasons for failure to take long strides in social sector is because of the low priority accorded to social sector development at the time of Independence. Social sector was not considered seriously as a possible alternative engine to drag the nation out of age-old economic backwardness following centuries of constant neglect of social sector under the colonial rule. Human resource was not seen as a powerful potential ‘means’, but as a desirable end. It was not seen as an opportunity but as a responsibility of a newly independent nation. The mindset of leaders of Independent Indian was certainly influenced to a large degree by western thought and physical infrastructure development (roads, dams, mining etc.) as engines of growth copying the western path of progress in 19^th and 20^th Centuries. This perhaps was a fallacy. Just because industrialization coupled with brazen loot of colonies brought about dramatic improvement in the West; or investment in heavy industries brought about fast economic progress in Soviet Union; it would not necessarily follow that the same model- which did not focus on social sector as an engine of growth-would work in Indian.

A similar catastrophic blunder could re-occur now in the wake of the new policy of liberalisation, privatisation and globalization. The prophetic statement of Amartya Sen and jean Dreze⁵ is quite relevant that:

‘’So much energy and wrath have been spent on attacking or defending liberalization and deregulation that the monumental  neglect of social inequalities  and deprivations in public policy has received astonishingly little attention in these debates. The issues underlying liberalization are not, of course, trivial, but engagement on these matters-in opposition or in defense cannot justify the conformist tranquility on the neglected  provisions of public education, healthcare and other direct means of  promoting basic human capabilities.’’

New Deal

Adequate allocation of funds for social sector is, no doubt, urgently required. However, it is also an important fact that even if the nation makes appreciably higher allocations in social sector, such outlays per se, are unlikely to lead to ‘outcomes’ unless the fundamental strategical assumptions about development are altered. What appears to be required is a total restructuring of priorities in the overall development strategy and to place social sector at its core as the locomotive for growth. It also requires suitable and appropriate reversal or at least reprogramming of the sequence in the developmental policy. It should be social sector first, or at least neck-to-neck with new post-1991 economic policy. The proposed launching of the ‘’Bharat Nirman” this year for providing basic facilities in the rural India at a cost of Rs.1,74,000 crore would go a long way in bringing about spectacular improvement in social sector. The resolve of Finance Minister to reorient expenditure to pay for more outlays on education, health and infrastructures is quite remarkable too. The infectious optimism of our present president repeatedly focusing his attention on schools and children is another important landmark. His book ‘’ Wings of Fire ‘’ encapsulates the current buoyant mood of the nation. It would be relevant to quote an excerpt form Peter Drucker’s book New Realities⁶ here.

‘’The biggest shift- bigger by far than changes in politics, government, or economics-is the shift to knowledge society…. The social center of gravity has shifted to the knowledge worker….. Looked at one way, this is the logical result of a long evolution in which we moved from working by sweat of our brow and by muscle to industrial work and finally to knowledge work’’.

Social sector development, is therefore no more ornament but necessity-a capital for a developing nation.

New Role for the State

Secondly, State so far has been shouldering the primary responsibility for social sector. As a regulatory agency in post liberal regime regulatory function of the state should not only be as a monitor to enforce rulers of fair play in a competitive market economy but should also include the function of authoritative reallocation of values in favour of the poor and deprived. As a strong referee in the market economy State has to ensure that adequate resources for social development would be a necessary ‘charge’ on the earnings in the market economy.

New Institutional Web

Thirdly, apart from the above fundamental policy issues responsible for poor outcomes, the other important aspect relates to the institutional framework within which social sector development was implemented. State, market and civil society are three alternatives as far as choice of institution for the delivery of social services is concerned. At the time of Independence, both private sector and social organisations in India had limited capability. As a result, State intervention was the only alternative. Schools, health care centres, safe drinking water facilities, rural roads and schemes for the improvement of the backward castes etc. were the exclusive responsibility of the State. As and when the market and the civil society became stronger, they assumed these responsibilities as parallel institutional agencies. Non-government Organisations (NGOs) have also come to occupy considerable role in this sector and have been looked at as examples of excellence in delivery of social sector services. The government agencies have so for social sector and civil society would assume greater role, but this would not happen uniformly in the nation as various regions and States in the country are at different levels in the path of development.

State can and should delegate its responsibility in the social sector where either market or civil society is able and willing to take over. It should also act as a facilitator and catalyst. State can delegate its role but it cannot abdicate its responsibility, at least not now, Liberalisation would mean erosion and sometimes elimination of State institutions in social sector. Hence it is important that State adopts a clear institutional substitution policy. Providing social safety nets that can catch those who are likely to be pushed to the economic margins as a result of State withdrawal would not be enough. It is not a question of tidying of some of the likely fallouts of liberlisation- sweeping the homeless from the streets or providing subsidized food to the impoverished, but the need is to create a web of strong institutions which would be able to effectively address the tasks in the social sector. A clear policy must take into account the scope and range of social sector tasks that can be handed over to market and civil society. The limitation of market economy is that it would look forward to user charge. Similarly there is a danger of expanding the scope of NGOs’ activities, for it may rob them of the dynamism and flexibility that made them so attractive – rendering them just as bureaucratic as the agencies they were meant to replace. Within these constraints, different policy packages may be designed to ensure adequate and strong institutional framework in various states and regions depending both on the stage of development and the cultural context. State must build robust partnership with private sector as well as NGO sector to surge ahead in tandem.

Fourthly, as far as performance related issues are concerned, the study of performing states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, etc., have pointed to clear and exemplary lesson. The achievements of these states in many social indicators like education, health and womens’ empowerment was possible by strong public action. Launching carefully designed programmes in mission mode, ensuring participatory processes at the grassroot level, convergence between complementary social sectors, transparency and accountability are some of the basic requirement for achieving tangible outcomes. The patron-client culture in delivery of social services has to change. Social sector should not be regarded as the agenda of the Government. It should be the agenda of the stakeholders at the grassroot level and the grassroots need to be nurtured by proper environment and nutrients. Education should be managed by the village level committees and parents rather than by the schoolteacher. Similarly primary health, drinking water supply, public distribution system, old age pensions etc. should be managed by community based organisations and government officials should be held accountable. The strategy has to focus on encouragement and strong support to peoples’ initiatives which leads to effective empowerment.

The content of social sector programmes needs also to be reviewed carefully. The school education has to relate to occupational skill development, instead of spreading only functional literacy or promoting clerical skills. Social legislation for guaranteeing robust social security of unorganised labour is a priority area keeping in view the possibility of large-scale displacements in an economy in flux. Insurance sector, both in public and private domains have a role here. The importance of population policies to arrest the unbridled growth of population needs to be built-in within the overall growth strategy. There is also a need to put in place a constitutional mechanism to enforce accountability of the political executive who may throw sound national policy on social sector out of gear for populist considerations.

There are obliviously no ready made fit-all solutions to the problems in social sector development of our diverse nation which is heading for unchartered waters. The need of the hour is to initiate a meaningful debate and public action which would signal a re-ignited resolve to animate the dormant human resource of the nation.