Beyond 'Transparency for publicity'

Carrying on from the last post...one of the reasons Owen cites for the need for transparency is the donor's desire to publicise the good work they are engaged in.

When it comes to aid projects, is there a danger that the call for transparency will reinforce the basic donor-need for flag-planting? I have visited many a countryside dotted by pillar after pillar, announcing the name of the benevolent donor that funded some plantation, some pond digging, some land levelling, some canal construction etc. Almost every water supply system or housing development is inaugurated and plaques unveiled so that the memories of the sponsor are etched in stone. I have been in meetings and received letters/emails where donors have taken pains to describe the exact size, shape, wording and imagery of these plaques/display boards.


In spite of being a sucker for greater transparency, such advertising bothers me, especially when it comes as one of the conditions for approval of grants in the first place. When I go out on the road next in Accra, do I really want to see which road was built by the MCC, which ones by the Chinese and so on?  

By the way, a good way to tell is this - if a road is under construction (and has been for over a year), then it must be MCC. If the road looks brand new and wasn't there the last time you passed that area, it must be the Chinese! The MCC roads have huge billboards announcing all the details of the construction. Sure, while people plod through the rubble of roads under construction, they have plenty time to read the bill-boards. The Chinese on the other hand, don't say much...

Well, in the first place, that is the wrong question to ask. What matters is not what I want to see or hear. What matters is what Ghanaians want to see. And what is that? I dont know. Ask them! That is the only way we can complete the transparency-accountability loop.

So, asking what information is relevant to local citizens is important. Asking also, how they want to see it is important. Clarifying what their choices are, once in possession of such information, is probably the most critical aspect - and one that will drive demand for better information in the first place.

Aid getting groovy: what else could follow?

In this edition of the Global Prosperity Wonkcast, Owen Barder talks of an "augmented reality" system for displaying aid information. As he himself rushes to add, it is not really a super-futuristic idea. Remember Pattie Maes and Pranav Mistry's TED talk from last year?

Owen's augmented reality device basically involves a smart-phone that can identify physical structures it is pointed towards and annotate it, giving additional information about the target object/structure - information such as which aid agency funded the structure/program, what the local communities think of it etc. Very effective. Very groovy. Of course, this need not be the model for aid alone. Governments can adopt this to enhance their local communication strategies, giving out information about public projects.

Is it too far-fetched to imagine a scenario, where a candidate's picture on an election campaign poster is annotated by the amounts he/she has spent on constituency development, the projects that have been successfully executed and a snap approval rating from his last term in office. Of course, the obvious question is - who controls this information that is being fed into the system? and who verifies it? Of course, when I look up information regarding my candidate, I know for one, that there are multiple sources of information/opinion (just like a 'google search') and what I choose to rely on is up to me.

Transparency is good. Unless we know where public funds are being spent, there is little hope that there will be any concrete action attempting to set systems right. Imagine a Build-Operate-Transfer toll road operating over many years, that shows you on the toll ticket, exactly how much toll has been collected off commuters as against the original target revenue, leading people to agitate demanding an end to toll collection when the target has been met. If we had a transparent system, either someone who try to fudge the figures, or toll collection would stop on its own. And there are many ways to fix the former.

Can my farm tell me what nutrients it is lacking the most this year?

Power to the people

Chanced on an interview of Elinor Ostrom, via Marginal Revolution. Ostrom is one of the few researchers whose work makes me seriously consider doing a Ph.D some day...

People managing their commons themselves is an idea I agree entirely with. "Reserving" a part of the forest or the hill slopes often only leads to alienation. What is needed in these parts is not to protect the commons from all humans, but from those humans who do not belong there in the first place. In tribal areas in India, it is often an influx of outside commercial interests, and not the natives fulfilling their basic needs, that leads to indiscriminate exploitation of resources.

What is far more complicated are the steps through which commons are privatised. Thinking about land disputes and acquisitions in developing countries - it is clear that a process in which people arrive at a settlement is a lengthy one. Especially ones that involve an outsider, negotiating a profitable price on land, that will then become private property, off-bounds for those who previously owned/used it. But these days, in an attempt to tempt, the state steps in...

The Supreme Court encourages immorality

is what 'they' are likely to say!

It happens only in India...

The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex

Thank God! 

Women's Reservation in the Lok Sabha

Voted into motion in the Rajya Sabha, the Women's Reservation Bill (WRB) has embarked on the final leg of its journey. While the parliamentarians hogged the limelight by tearing drafts, breaking microphones and being expelled, sections of the media voiced complaints that an what was missing was an insightful and constructive debate. HT Blogs carried this piece today, criticising the compulsory rotation of seats for women on the grounds that in this way, no MP would be motivated to cultivate a relationship with his/her constituency. This also breaks the loop of performance and feedback between the elected and the electorate. Kalpana Sharma thinks that by merely rotating seats, we would end up with more proxy candidates, as women merely stand-in for the men when the seats are reserved for them. For a comprehensive overview of the WRB by PRS Legislative Research, see here.

Both these objections are well-founded and clearly require a proper debate. It is important that we do not establish a system that while providing representation to more women, erodes the basic character of a democracy. If Members of Parliament (MPs) do not feel the need to nurture their constituencies, they could become more corrupt in trying to watch out primarily for their self-interest. One question to ask here is - will the reservation of 33% seats happen randomly across the country or will it be implemented for the Lok Sabha seats in each state? This is important, since political leaders are quite well known within their respective states and as long as it is known that only a fixed proportion of seats within a state will be reserved for women, they can plan their time in office better. An elected member cannot get away with bad performance and can claim credit for good performance if he/she is campaigning from a constituency close to their previous seat. Sitting members could also plan their activities better, using their MPLAD funds for broader outreach, not limited to only their constituencies. If a state is too big, one can consider regional divisions and hold those divisions for the duration of the reservation policy.

Also, the WRB proposes that reservations will be in place for 15 years only, under the assumption that this period will witness three general elections. The three general election cycle implies that the sequence of reservations could be anticipated in advance and political parties could use the information to their advantage. Will there be an effort to strengthen potential women candidates? For instance, will a political party, knowing that a constituency A will be reserved in the next election, groom a woman leader for the forthcoming elections? Clearly, there is a lot that the 15 years of experimentation will reveal.

At one level, with the first-past-the-post system of elections in India, our options may be limited as it is. If the LS was constituted instead through a proportional representation system, we could have a law that stipulates that 33% of the candidates that every political party nominates to the LS have to be women. For political parties that get one seat, 33% of them (randomly chosen) would be required to nominate a woman MP. Any such proposal obviously expects a high degree of gender equity and inner-party democracy within political parties - a tough ask at the moment.

Also, what about a rule that a any candidate who wins from a reserved seat has to (if they decide to contest again) contest from an unreserved seat in the next election. This will prevent political parties from shifting the same candidates from one constituency to another and will give exposure to a wider set of women to become MPs.

One way or the other, the WRB is on its way. It remains to be seen if this will help our politicians break out of the easy trappings of symbolism and tokenism. But one thing is clear - the rules of the game are going to change. Everyone involved will have to adapt.

Heading for a nail-biting finish?

On the occasion of the centenary International Women's Day, our politicians have painstakingly planned, promoted and organised a genuine thriller. This is like following the last half-hour of a test match, with Bhajji bowling to the tail on a totally unpredictable track, in front of a packed house. Will he get Amla? Will the Ayes have it?

Live commentary on Rediff

PS - as it turns out, no vote. Match abandoned due to crowd (mob) violence

PS to PS - I was unduly pessimistic yesterday. Turns out, that was only the close of play on Day 4. Although Day 5 resumed with eviction of the unruly mob, the battle is on. There should be a finale tonight.

Data and accountability

'Aid Thoughts' pitches in for improving statistical capacities of African governments. I couldn't agree more.

Working closely with one of the biggest Ministries and its implementation arm in Ghana , I cannot even count the number of times we have had to deal with the lack of reliable data (and sometimes, any data). A lot of us would probably agree that this lack of data seriously hampers planning. But planning by/for whom? People like me - donors/INGOs and their consultants - who drop down from the sky on these offices, demanding to see good numbers on which to construct our new project proposals?

These questions are not new to me. The NGOs I worked with in India had exactly the same issues. Reports generated from data collected from the field were primarily for donor reporting. Implementation teams did not think they needed to look at those numbers - they thought they knew exactly what was going on, without having to rely on sets of numbers collected from the ground. And of course, a lot of the time, they were right. The implementer's instinct is often shaped by years of collective experience and should not be discounted. However, a refusal to use data for planning and reviews is asking for trouble later, if not sooner.

Coming back to Ghana - what I have not seen is any discomfort among local officials at having less-than-reliable data. Is it that they simply don't care? Is all planning just pushed by perceptions and based, at best, on broad-brush aggregate statistics? And most importantly, is all the data basically for everyone, but the citizens of the country.


Citizens holding their governments to account is a romantic ideal for development workers. We have all seen if happen sometimes, but not often enough. We have all seen places where any form of accountability is completely absent. Do people anywhere ask hard questions of their governments - not of what money was spent and how many schools/hospitals/miles of road/micro-loans were built/laid/distributed, but about the outcomes achieved, the changes seen over time?

Donors who have to be accountable to the tax-payers in their respective countries, are usually happy to ensure that aid-recipient governments report back to them. So if there is an additional $10 billion out there, it will be well-used, if invested in improving the statistical capacity of recipient governments and at the same time, encouraging mechanisms to to engage citizens by regularly communicating outputs and outcomes.

Winning the debate in agriculture

Pranab-babu laid out his four-pronged strategy for agriculture in India -

• agricultural production, 
• reduction in wastage, 
• credit support; and 
• thrust in post-harvest technology and food processing.

In reaction to the budget, was this piece by M S Swaminathan. He seems hopeful and optimistic (with the Finance Minister):

"Pranab Mukherjee, for the first time in recent years, has laid out a road map for agricultural recovery and progress based on integrated attention to the conservation of the ecological foundations essential for sustainable agriculture, cultivation based on the principles of conservation and climate-resilient farming, consumption with attention to food safety and quality, and farmer-centric commerce"

Swaminathan stresses on the importance of convergence of the different schemes and better coordination between the state and central governments. He expresses concern about the lack of attention paid to irrigation in the budget and lauds the government for focusing on post-harvest technology, in particular, grain storage. 

Alongside Swaminathan's article, was P. Sainath. I admire Sainath's tireless crusade to shine the light on the plight of poor farmers in India. Here is Sainath's take on the Union Budget announced last week. Sainath makes his now-familiar sarcastic and passionate pitch, pointing out how vested interests have taken over and are systematically squeezing the small (poor) farmers. He blasts politicians for being hand-in-glove with corporate interests and exposes what statistics do not reveal when they report increases in agricultural credit over the last decade.


However Sainath also tears into almost every proposal in the budget. Commercialisation is a word he hates in particular. Sample this comment on the four-pronged strategy:

"The first of these, “agricultural production,” could mean anything. The other three are a goldmine for large corporations, not the countless millions of small and marginal farmers who produce India's food. Take “Reduction in wastage of produce.” This means more big bucks for companies setting up storage facilities"

Sainath repeatedly reminds us that while the farmers got a one-time loan waiver of INR 70,000 crore, corporate tax payers have secured, this year alone, waivers worth INR 500,000 crore. As striking as these figures might be, there is no attempt by him to analyse whether any of the INR 500,000 crore will spur industrial activity in the country. And will that growth benefit any of us citizens (including the poor farmer) directly or indirectly? Of course, I do not believe that all growth will trickle down. I also do not think that corporates are not going to secure obscene amount profits as a result of these write-offs. However, its not that straightforward, right? Surely, there are benefits in having better food-grain storage technology, especially when our foodgrain stocks rot and go waste every single year.

I do love a serious critic. But Sainath comes across as a total conspiracy-theorist. And there is hardly a single line in his piece that offers a constructive solution; not one that suggests a way ahead, keeping in mind that we cannot wish away the strong lobbies at work. No one denies there are vested interests at work. No one denies that small farmers are in a extremely difficult situation. Only the naive would claim that the budget is not a reflection of the current state of the nation's politics. But those precisely are the compulsions of policy-making at New Delhi. Resisting  the development of new technologies and emergence of corporate partnerships seems pretty futile to me, unless one can advocate better terms to manage these relationships and attempt to safeguard the interests of the vulnerable. As long as Sainath remains an advocate of the 'ideal' without mulling over what is possible and pragmatic, his criticisms unfortunately stand little chance of being addressed.