Public infrastructure: A child of competing claims, limited resources

Public infrastructure: A child of competing claims, limited resources
Merit takes a back seat as rule of might dominates investments in the sector
Ramesh Ramanathan
Financial Express

Bangalore seems to find a way to be in the news, for all the wrong reasons: a recent media cover story talked of creaking infrastructure. Business leaders express frustration in private conversations, sotto voce. The same situation is true in most cities across the country. The argument is well-worn: we need better infrastructure if we are to fuel economic activity. We deserve world-class infrastructure in our cities— roads, water supply power, healthcare, education and so on. While environmentalists would express legitimate concern that urbanisation has a dark underbelly, the answer is a focus on sustainable development rather than a utopian ideal of reversing urbanisation. The emergence and growth of cities happens through the interplay of a complex set of forces: urbanisation cannot be predicted or controlled, it can only be responded to and managed.

As for infrastructure, it doesn’t just drop from the sky, magically “appearing” on our cityscapes. There is a context to every flyover, every metro-rail, every airport. This context is the decision-making process which underlies that infrastructure. here are two dimensions to infrastructure buil-ding: the first relates to “What do we build”, while the second is about, “How do we build it”. In India, we are all frustrated with the second part, and this is understandable: there is no excuse for poor execution and shoddy outcomes. But the question is which infrastructure: should the focus be on low-income housing or flyovers, public transport systems or water supply, sewage treatment plants or airports. The answer cannot simply be “Yes!”. Of course, we need all this. But, what is the sequencing, the prioritisation, given the limited resources that we have, and the co-mpeting claims for these resources?

Unfortunately, this is where the real problem lies. Business leaders ask for airports to facilitate business travel; power supply to keep their factories humming; highways for their goods and services. The poor want adequate healthcare and housing; water supply and underground drainage so their daughters don’t go through a daily ritual of shame. The middle class want affordable public transport; self-sufficient neighbourhoods with local amenities. These are all competing claims for a scarce set of resources. Hence, there needs to be an accepted public process of negotiation to resolve these claims. This is really the hard part. Different countries have different systems for this resolution. China has a rigidly-defined machine for such decision-making. Little time is wasted on collective negotiations. Of course, there are signs of things being loosened up, people voicing dissent, and big-brother not peering over every shoulder. But these are superficial: the real resource allocation decisions are strictly unilateral. For India, the urgency of our economic development has brought us to a moment of truth, especially among opinion leaders. We can no longer talk from both sides of our mouth. We cannot talk of the romantic notion of democracy without accepting the messy reality of it. We have to cross the chasm that cleaves the path we have chosen, turning back is not an option. And consoling ourselves by saying that we have gone from crossing 50% of it to now crossing 90% is not good enough, we are still falling into the abyss. Business leaders are not convinced that fixing the decision-making process is the answer. For one, there is a fear that their requirements might not rank high on a collective list of priorities. Most business leaders vociferously defend their infrastructure needs, “Don’t we generate the jobs that keep the city going, and create a multiplier effect for the economy? Why should we not get the infrastructure we deserve?” These are legitimate claims. So why should these not resonate with the poor and the middle class? Is it that the others will not “see” the benefits? This leads to their second concern: their feeling that while current processes are poorly designed, they are not clear what the improved processes ought to be.

The last point is critical. We have too few final decision-makers for most issues, and need to move towards decentralised decision-making in our country. Yes, we do have a democratic edifice of elections and representatives, but this is still substantially incomplete. A great deal of work is still left: mechanisms for widespread dispersal of decision-making authority to be established, rules-of-the-game to be spelt out, laws to be amended, people to be trained. But, all this is happening at a time when globalisation is placing increasing demands on businesses. What should business leaders focus on, get their infrastructure willy-nilly, or get embroiled in setting the rules of democratic decision-making? No points for guessing their choice.

Unfortunately, this is a trap. The combination of competing claims, limited resources and invisible decision-making rules creates a potent cocktail: it renders us short-sighted and self-centred. And then, whoever has the power, flexes it, twisting decisions in their direction. The moment we get into murky decision-making processes, everybody has an alibi. The politician shakes his head, “I tell you, these babus. They simply don’t deliver.” The bureaucrat throws up his hands, “Things are going from bad to worse; every contract has a 2% additional cost built into it.” The corporate leaders complain, “These people don’t do what we want them to do”. The poor are voiceless, and the middle-class become mindless free-riders in a man-eat-man system. What we lack in our country is not the ability to build world-class roads and airports and water-supply systems—we have the technical talent for all this. Rather, it is the context within which these decisions are taken. If we could wear the x-ray goggles and see the invisible decisions behind the visible infrastructure, we would spot the link between poor processes and poor outcomes. We have to fix our decision-making processes, so that we can then focus on the second part of our infrastructure conundrum: demanding delivery from our public institutions. This is not easy work, but it needs to be done. The sooner we fix this, the faster we can have the cities that all of us deserve.

The writer is Campaign Coordinator of Janaagraha, a citizens’ platform for participatory democracy. He can be reached at ramesh@janaagraha.org