The Final Review

The widely feted Kerala Model of Development is one which exhibits high levels of human development despite the lack of success in economic growth. It goes against the conventional wisdom that human development occurs only with concomitant economic development and has been held out as an example for other low income states to follow (Kurien 1995:71, Parayil 1996:942). The model has been a part of developmental discourse for over three decades during which time the site of its inception, the state of Kerala, has undergone tremendous socio-economic change that now invites critical attention to new challenges and opportunities posed by the successes and failures of this particular paradigm of development. The Human Development Report, 2005, for Kerala is one such attempt by the Center of Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram to understand how the model faces up to the demands of the “second generation problems of human development such as quality”(p.2) in the face of a demographic transition and the forces of globalisation. The report examines the development process in Kerala, closely scrutinising the state’s performance along the various parameters of the Model and makes a case for “charting a human development-based growth strategy for the future” (p.3) by harnessing the economic growth the state has witnessed in the last 15 years with a shift in the emphasis on quality in the delivery of services. The human development paradigm is understood as aimed at enabling people to lead a full and productive life in accordance to their wishes and needs through a process of enlarging their choices by building on fundamental human capabilities like longevity, literacy, standard of living and participation in community life (Sen 1997:105- 132) . The introductory chapters examine the historical trajectory of the development process and note its role in eliminating regional disparities across the state. In assessing the historical head start Kerala enjoyed, the report points to the role of proactive governments in the princely states in providing for a system

of

landholding

that

permitted

the

commercialisation

and

modernisation of agriculture that in turn provided them with the resources

to invest in social goods like education and health. The post colonial state built on this inheritance through policies of land reform and an emphasis on the education and health sectors. Kerala for much of its history exhibited a pattern of ‘human development lopsided growth’ (p.15) that raised questions on the sustainability of the state’s ability to maintain and finance its social development programmes. Spread across two chapters, the report assesses the performance of Kerala along both income and non income parameters of development. Along the latter set of indices, such as sex ratio, infant and maternal mortality rates, longevity, mean age at marriage and immunisation coverage, Kerala does well comparing favourably with international standards. Unlike most states there exists little difference between regions and between rural and urban areas along these parameters. Yet, the distinction across social groups on these parameters remains significant. Thus, the poor, the SC and ST communities and the fishing community continue to lag behind on the indices of human development 1. The problem of distributive justice, a concern central to the capabilities approach, coupled with the persistence of such trends as malnutrition, low birth weights and increasing morbidity and the emergence of lifestyle diseases are other concerns that tarnish the state’s performance. An interesting counterpoint to these problems is provided by Kumar, who looks at the issue of continuing trends of morbidity and nutritional deprivation through a prism of responses along behaviour, lifestyle, diagnosis and better reportage and argues that “while the persistence of high morbidity in a region that has seen spectacular successes in the field of health policy may at first glance be deemed surprising and unfortunate, on reflection it may well be just another facet of success in controlling the great scourge of so many millions in India and elsewhere, namely 1

Kurien ( 1995 ) for instance looks at what he calls the ‘central tendency’ and the ‘outlier’ of the Kerala Model and argues that the common perception of it fails to locate the outliers- groups like the fishing community that fail to find a separate mention in discussions on the Model. His paper in examining the reasons for the plight of the outlier fishing community identifies issues such as differential property ownership norms, the socio-religious practices and the difference in social mores as responsible for the failure to catch up with the mainstream.

premature mortality”(1993:120). The Report however also points to a situation of increasing recurrence of infectious diseases in recent years in the state and points to how they have disproportionately affected the poor and the vulnerable sections of society. The evaluation of the state’s performance along patterns of income growth and income poverty examines the role of the State and State sponsored social security nets in combating poverty. Pensions, benefits and various targeted schemes, the report argues, have helped the poorer sections deal better with loss of income and capabilities and have been a key instrument in dealing with the linked duality of poverty and human insecurity. While the social benefits of these programs have been immense, the report notes, the fiscal cost of maintaining them have been small as a percentage of the State’s expenditure. In a state where under nutrition remains a serious concern, despite the recent turn around in its economic fortunes, the role of the PDS is a crucial one in ensuring accessibility and availability of cheap food for the population. The report criticises the current policy of a Targeted PDS as being deleterious to this situation. The role of the pro active State that through policies such as the universal PDS and social security measures has helped ameliorate the worst forms of inequality is posited as a desirable and its expansion by means of greater resource mobilisation through better tax compliance and elimination of subsidies for the non poor is argued out as a solution for sustaining the gains of the model (p.56). The turnaround in the economic performance of Kerala in the ‘90s led by remittances from abroad and industrial revival at home coupled with the explosive growth of the tertiary sector has meant the state no longer remains a case of ‘human lopsided development’. Yet, the section concludes, Kerala’s performance along the income indices of development have remained below par as compared to its performance along the non income indices. Having deconstructed Kerala’s performance along income and non income indices

of

development,

the

report

further

problematizes

the

achievements by introducing the notion of deprivation – which is seen as being beyond the narrow confines of money income. Employing an index of deprivation that looks at qualitative deprivation in the areas of housing, sanitation, potable water and electric lighting, the report further probes the achievements mirrored in the HDI. The use of this index throws up surprising horizontal inequalities- inequalities between communitieswhere the SC and ST communities are seen as clearly having failed to benefit commensurately along human and economic development, a failure that the report sees as largely explained by the failure of the much celebrated land reform and redistribution programs to adequately cater to community specific needs (p.66). The changing pattern of Kerala’s work force, a result of its demographic transition comes under scrutiny in the following chapter. The decline in dependent population, the rise in the aged dependent and of the labour force as also a fall in the fertility rates and the stabilisation of population are the results of the transformation, which in turn is a product of the investments made in health and education. The failure to develop an industrial sector and concomitant job opportunities have however resulted in international migration in search of jobs, the remittances sent back from where today accounts for 20% of the state’s income (p.78). The state’s economic revival in the ‘90s was made possible by the influx of remittances as it served to spur, simultaneously, both investments and demand- the former in the form of greater volume of deposits with the banks and the latter in the form of increasing demand for consumer goods. Kerala’s failure to build up an efficient economic infrastructure is not, contrary to popular perception, a result of governments having traded one set of goods for another, but rather the result of inefficiency, mismanagement and corruption rampant in the implementation of these programs. The chapter concludes that “Defining development in its truest sense in terms of a duality of availability (including accessibility) and quality, we find that the ‘development’ Kerala has achieved, once discounted for quality, boils down to mere apparent capability (a-

capability)

enhancement,

and

thus

to

apparent

development

(a-

development) only.” (p.83) The spotlight is then turned onto the educational scenario in Kerala, where priority has always been given to primary education. Unlike in the South East Asian nations, where a similar policy was followed, resulting in overall improvement in the qualitative levels of education, the failure of Kerala’s educational system to improve its qualitative benchmarks has meant that universalised education has largely been bereft of any great quality. In recent years this has meant an increasing substitution of government schools by private schools which are seen as qualitatively better, putting greater socio-economic pressures on parents from poorer economic backgrounds. A similar situation has begun to emerge even in the health sector, characterised by the mushrooming of niche super-speciality hospitals and privately run medical colleges. Wide variations in the quality of education run counter to the equalising tendency of education. The failure of the education policy to establish institutes of excellence in the field of higher education is also beginning to take a toll on the state against the backdrop of rapid changes in the world labour markets and increasing migration from the state. A related problem is that of educated unemployment which has to it a strong gender dimension. The report, in chapter seven, argues that unemployment in Kerala remains open and starker among the youth, especially educated women, where the combination of education with conservative social mores have proved to be a major barrier resulting in one of the lowest women’s work participation ratios in the country. Employment, at least among men, is widely casualised, but the quality of employment is better than in the rest of the country. The presence of the educated unemployed has, ironically, only served to further the demand for more education. Higher and more specialised forms of education are increasingly seen as the way out of the problem of employability- an important factor in explaining the spurt in the number of technical institutes opened in the private sector in the state. In the absence of an emphasis on quality over quantity, the report argues, the problem of employability and educated unemployment will

continue to remain. Further, the report concludes “an examination of employment, unemployment, property rights and violence suggests that patriarchy has been reconstituted through social reform and has endured in and through social development in Kerala” (p.120). The use of GDI to analyse the results of the HDI from the perspective of gender throws up further surprises- with women becoming another ‘outlier’ in the model. While literacy rates and enrolment ratios remain comparable, and women enjoy better life expectancy, their income deprivation remains astonishingly stark. In most districts, women’s incomes were anywhere between 66-80% less than men. This factor of economic dependence on men coupled with changes like the phasing out of matrilineal inheritance norms among certain communities have contributed to what the report identifies as the reconstitution of patriarchy. According to Parayil, “The factors responsible for Kerala's achievements can be attributed to: meaningful land reforms; 'food for all' schemes through fair-price shops and feeding programmes for school children, infants and mothers; providing easy access to primary and preventative healthcare; promoting high literacy, particularly among women, through free and universal primary and secondary education; high mandated agricultural and farm wages; cost-effective transportation facilities; rural electrification; engaging the poor and working people in democratic processes, such as in labour and civic organizations; fostering public dialogue on environmental conservation issues; and developing social movements through the establishment of a civil society to promote environmental conservation and other grassroots projects.” (1996:950). Concerted public action and the ability of the state to respond actively to public demands, he identifies have been the reason for the remarkable performance of the state in human development. Critical thinking on the Kerala Model has recognised the vital role of the state in the establishment of policies and practices that were responsible for the rapid social changes in Kerala. This Report too holds out the same, but it is no panegyric to the much vaunted model. Arguing that the

conventional notion of the Kerala model as that of a paradox between social development and economic backwardness no longer holds true, the report highlights the current shortcomings of the model and the challenges that it faces. Significant among the problems are those of continuing high rates of educated unemployment, deprivation in a general sense that overrides the official estimates of poverty and the horizontal and gender inequalities of development that raise significant questions on the apparent success of this development paradigm. Considering the centrality of the role of a pro active State in the implementation of the policies, the possibility of its continuation within the global meta-narrative of neo liberal ideology needs examination. The recent spurt in economic growth have largely been the result of increasing remittances from abroad and the structural changes in the economy. Industrial and employment generating growth have, for the most part, continued to elude the state. The report identifies the need for qualitative changes in education as a primary goal towards dealing with this situation. It advocates the continued presence of the State’s active intervention in ensuring socio-economic justice to the voiceless, the socially disadvantaged, the working class and the poor. A qualitative shift in the delivery of public policy decisions in health, education, PDS that at once links development with growth while also reducing horizontal inequalities and gender unfreedom is the only way for the meaningful continuance of Kerala’s exemplary growth in the 21st century.