{"id":1316,"date":"2015-11-01T16:18:23","date_gmt":"2015-11-01T16:18:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/2015\/11\/01\/politics-of-privatisation-and-ppp-in\/"},"modified":"2025-07-15T08:25:47","modified_gmt":"2025-07-15T08:25:47","slug":"politics-of-privatisation-and-ppp-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/?p=1316","title":{"rendered":"Politics of Privatisation and PPP in Rajasthan: What are the risks?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Nesar Ahmad<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Recent policy developments in
\nthe state<\/span><\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The BJP government in last
\nalmost two years has brought in some very interesting policy and legislative
\nchanges in Rajasthan. Let us have a look at some of the recent policy and legal
\nchanges in the state of Rajasthan. Below is a summary of some of the recent
\ndevelopments: <\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
First changing the central labour laws in the
\nstate to make it easier for the industries to retrench the workers, make it
\nmore difficult for the workers to unionize and removing the compulsion to
\nimplement the Factories Act for most of the industries. <\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then bringing a bill for not implementing the
\n2013 Act on land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement in the state
\nand fast acquisition of land of the farmers without their consent and without
\nthe social impact assessment, which is now put on hold but can be again brought
\nin any time. Beside, the state government has also passed its own Special
\nEconomic Zone Act. <\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then bringing a draft policy for introducing
\nPPP in secondary schools and efforts to give the select schools to the private
\nsector.<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Then a decision by the cabinet to hand over 90
\nprimary health centres (PHCs) to the private players and later handing 300 PHCs
\nand one Community Health Centre (CHC) to the private companies.<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Handing the anganwadi centres to the private
\ncompanies as Nand ghars.<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

These are some of the examples of the steps taken by the Bhartiya
\nJanta Party government in the state of Rajasthan, which indicate a certain
\npolicy direction. They indicate the state government\u2019s immense trust on the
\nprivate sector and the intention to protect the interests of the private sector
\ncompanies. This becomes even clearer when one looks at the list of the members
\nof Chief Minister Advisory Council in the state which replaced earlier State
\nPlanning Board. The CM Advisory Council is full of the big industrialists of
\nthe country.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The state government seems to believe that by giving all
\nkind of waivers to the private sector (changes in the labour laws) and giving
\nthem various facilities (efforts to make the land acquisition easier) will
\nbring lots of national and foreign investment in the state which will ensure
\nfast economic growth, which in turn would create employment. The upcoming Resurgent
\nRajasthan, in which big investors and industrialists from the country and
\nabroad are invited, is also an effort in the same direction.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
At the same time the argument given in favour of privatization
\nof social services like health, education and anganwadi centres is that the
\ngovernment has not been able to run these services efficiently and the private
\nsector can do a better job. Therefore, privatization of these services would
\nlead to better service delivery to the masses.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Growth at what cost!<\/b><\/div>\n
There is a need to scrutinize these arguments critically. Is
\nit necessary to give all kind of waivers to the private sector the attract
\ninvestment? Can there be economic growth only when labour rights are curtailed
\nand farmers\u2019 lands are taken without their consent? What is benefit of the jobs
\ncreated by such economic growth (if at all jobs are created) when the workers
\nwould have no job guarantee and no basic facilities and safety at the workplace?
\nHow can the negative impacts of industrialization on environment and society be
\nchecked without having the social impact assessments of the projects? Is the
\nfast economic growth as necessary that the government can curtail workers\u2019 and
\nfarmers\u2019 rights for it?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
And does the fast economic growth actually lead to
\nemployment creation? If we look at the statistics, there has been fastest
\neconomic growth in the county during the 10 years of the United Progressive
\nAlliance (UPA) rule led by Manmohan Singh. On an average the Indian economy
\ngrew at 7.6 % per annum during the UPA rule. However, the employment increased
\nat slow pace of 0.5% per annum during this period, as per Economic Survey
\n2014-15. Not only this, the unemployment rate also remained at the level of 2%
\nduring the decade.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Is private sector really better in service delivery!<\/b><\/div>\n
Now the other aspect of the privatization policy of the
\nRajasthan government that is privatization of basic social services like
\nprimary health, education and anganwadi centres should also be examined. Are
\nthe private schools and private health centres better than the government
\nschools in providing quality services to the people? But we will also have to
\nlook at the available budget, availability of the teachers, doctors, nurses and
\nother staff at the government heath centres and schools. The government health
\ncentres suffer from vacant posts of doctors, nurses and other technical staff
\nwhile there are very few teachers in the government schools in the remote
\nareas. The status of basic infrastructure in the government health centres and
\nschools is also quite well known. It is meaningless to compare the private and
\ngovernment health centres and schools without ensuring these facilities.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The budget for health and education in the country and the
\nstate, though seems to be very high, is very low compared to the gross domestic
\nproduct of the country and the state. Both at the national and state level the
\nallocation to the education sector is slightly more than 3% of the GDP and
\nallocation to the health sector is slightly more than 1% of the GDP. The
\ngovernment\u2019s commitment on various forums is to provide 6% and 3% of GDP for
\neducation and health respectively.<\/div>\n
Most of the education budget in the state is directed
\ntowards the primary education. The budget for secondary education is very low
\nand budget for higher education is almost negligible. This year (2015-16) the
\nhealth budget in the state is Rs. 9416 (including the budget for the centrally
\nsponsored schemes), which comes to little more than Rs. 1200 per person. It
\nshould be noted that this budget includes salaries as well which is large part
\nof the health budget. Obviously there is not adequate budget for the social
\nsector schemes.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Also, the private companies have this clear motive of making
\nprofit and not that of serving the people. For example the state government has
\nallowed the private companies running the state PHCs to charge the people for
\nthose services which are not provided on the government PHCs. This policy
\nprovides the private sector with a ready market for their services and makes it
\nbeneficial for them to run the PHCs.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Also the most important question is, if the private
\ncompanies have to provide services to the people they can do so in addition to
\nthe government efforts. Why they must try to replace the government? They can run
\nthe schools, health centres, and cr\u00e8ches for workers children at free and\/or
\naffordable costs for the poor people without taking over the government run
\nschools and PHCs on part of their corporate social responsibility.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The politics of PPP<\/b><\/div>\n
The privatization of basic social services in the name of
\nPublic Private Partnership will have larger political implications. There is
\nhardly any evidence that shows positive outcome of the privatization of
\nservices in terms of increased access of the people to these services. On the
\nother hand the privatization may lead to increasing cost of these essential
\nservices for the people as this would lead to further commodification of these essential
\nservices. The commoditification essentially means that the services like
\neducation and health are considered at par with any commercial service which
\ncan be provided commercially in the market.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Also the increasing privatization of the essential services and
\npolicy and legislative changes favourable for the private sector indicate the
\nincreasing role of and direct intervention by the private sector in the policy
\nmaking. The CM Advisory Council is full of the big industrialists and
\ngovernment is listening to their suggestions and ideas. This is not necessarily
\nin accordance with the true spirit of the electoral democracy in which people
\nelect their government to make policies and legislation.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In conclusion<\/b>, the move to privatize the basic social
\nservices and the greater emphasis on PPP and the favour provided to the private
\nsector may not be able to achieve their stated objectives. On the other hand
\nthere is a real threat that these policy and legislative changes may deprive the
\npoor workers and farmers of their rights and can push them in further
\ndisadvantageous position, while the public sector social services available to
\nthem, in whatever form and quality, may also get far from their access. This
\nmay lead to further marginalization of the poor people in the state.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
First published in November issue of PUCL Monthly Bulletin<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n