KARNATAKA - of Planning Commission

CHAPTER 15The Way ForwardIntroductionIn this, the last chapter, which sets out to chart acourse for the future, we take stock of the issuesdiscussed in the preceding chapters and suggestsome broad policy strategies. Each chaptercontains a very detailed set of recommendationswhich will not be repeated here. The chapter willhighlight central concerns in Karnataka’s humandevelopment and indicate signposts for the future.Unlike previous State HDRs, this Report has athematic focus: it analyses public investment inhuman development in Karnataka and its outcomeswith regard to the physical quality of life, especiallyfor the poor and marginalised groups – literacy,education, healthcare, nutrition, drinking water,sanitation, housing and livelihoods. The Report haspresented, within the context of fi nancing humandevelopment, an analysis of the multiple deprivationsexperienced by people located at the intersectionof caste, poverty, gender and region. The Reportnotes that equity and effi ciency are not mutuallyexclusive, but are mutually reinforcing. Therecannot be a trade-off between fi scal prudence andsocial sector investment. The provision of adequatefunds must necessarily be matched by enhancedeffi ciency in service delivery for both the rural andurban poor. The governance reforms in Karnatakahave been evaluated from this perspective. Sincedevolution of planning, governance and servicedelivery powers and functions to local bodies, isperceived, quite correctly, as the most effective wayof ensuring accountability and transparency at thegrassroots, the Report assesses the performanceof local governments in transforming the humandevelopment scenario in Karnataka. Governmentsand local bodies perform best when civil society isvigilant in voicing and safeguarding public interest.Social mobilisation based on right to informationinitiatives and informal collective associations suchas women’s self-help groups, which go beyondcredit, to empowerment, could well be a step inthat direction. A review of the work of NGOs andtheir partnerships with government as well as civilsociety suggests that there is a need for strongerpartnerships for development – a public-private-NGO-community coalition for human development,instead of stand-alone interventions by each ofthem separately.Human development inKarnatakaIt is now recognised that while high economicgrowth is indeed crucial to a country’s development,it may not automatically improve the lives of allpeople especially if there is inequity of access to thebenefi ts of growth, which results in exclusion andthe marginalisation of large sub-populations. TheUNDP Human Development Reports replace thegrowth driven model of development by one thataffi rms that growth without human development isinequitable, unjust and exclusionary. Developmentmust be people-centric and people-driven to betruly meaningful.One of the major fi ndings of the Karnataka HumanDevelopment Report 1999 was that Karnatakaranked seventh among major Indian states with ahuman development index (0.448) that was onlyslightly higher than all-India (0.423). The 1999Report noted that most of the social indicatorsfor Karnataka hovered around the nationalaverage and there was a need for the state tobreak out of the mould of an average performer.This Report establishes that while Karnataka hasimproved its performance, its HDI (0.650) is onlymarginally higher than the all-India HDI value(0.621). Among states, it still ranks seventh. Atthe international level, Karnataka’s position is120 while India is 127. The attainment of humandevelopment in Karnataka is considerably betterthan in most South Asian countries such asPakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh.Financing human developmentThe 1999 HDR also recommended a signifi cantincrease in public investment in social sectorsand directing the additional resources to theUnlike previous StateHDRs, this Report has athematic focus: it analysespublic investment inhuman developmentin Karnataka and itsoutcomes with regard tothe physical quality of life,especially for the poorand marginalised groups.Equity and efficiency arenot mutually exclusive,but are mutuallyreinforcing. There cannotbe a trade-off betweenfiscal prudence and socialsector investment.307