Kerala 2005 - of Planning Commission

130
are welcomed, more simple and down-to-earth
technological changes in agriculture and related
activities are opposed. There is also a fairly long
history of opposition to technological change in such
industries as coir processing and manufacturing. This
creates imbalance in income, both within and across
sectors. Those who work with ‘low’ technological
base earn a low income and those who work with
advanced technological base gain high income.
Sectoral imbalance in productivity leads to income
imbalance among workers. Therefore, a piecemeal
approach to technological change is not a good policy
from a larger social point of view. It will only aggravate
income inequality.
Opposing technological change has not resulted in
job protection because industries and activities move
away, as for instance in the case of coir processing/
manufacturing and cashew processing and anything
that involves employment of large numbers of workers.
In agriculture, the result has been to move towards low
labour absorbing crops. Thus, opposing technological
change has neither served the immediate purpose of job
protection nor the long-term objective of development.
Given the fact that the younger generation in general,
and the unemployed, in particular, are educated, they
desire to work with technology than without it. It also
contributes to their self-esteem providing better work
conditions.
waste its energy and resources in producing things that
other regions can do better. The national economy
offers unrestricted access to the region’s products.
It can also source capital and raw materials as well as
available technology. It also offers opportunity to tap
the pool of talented skilled workers, professionals and
other knowledge workers. The context of economic
liberalisation, both nationally and internationally,
has further opened up these opportunities; there is
now much greater degree of mobility for capital and
labour. This can work against the interest of a regional
economy like Kerala, if conditions are not favourable
for investment. This is exactly what has happened to
Kerala, as witnessed by the flight of capital and labour
from the State.
A regional development strategy in the context of
economic liberalisation also calls for a different role
of the State – not a reduced role but a different role.
On the one hand, it has to enhance the capabilities
of its people to face new challenges. Kerala has done
this to some extent through its social development
but now has to go further by enhancing the quality of
such capabilities. The State also has to provide quality
infrastructure and provide good governance to attract
investment that will lead to the creation of desired
employment.
It should also be stressed that not all technological
changes are labour displacing. Many technological
changes such as hydrological (water control), biological
(e.g. new and better seeds) and chemical (e.g. fertilisers
and pesticides) are labour-augmenting.
Innovation is a much broader concept than
technological change. It has to do with not only new
techniques but also doing things differently, including
making new products, finding new sources, organising
in new ways, etc. Recent examples of successful
innovations are in the areas of ayurveda, tourism,
ICT-based activities, food processing, garments and a
variety of small things.
2.3 Need for a Regional Development Strategy
At the outset, any strategy for further development
in Kerala should acknowledge the fact that the State
is a regional economy within a very large national
economy. This has to be consciously factored, lest it