Let’s use ‘special governance zones’ as test spaces to work out how we can improve urban India
In a recent online conversation on the dismal state of urban infrastructure, a senior political leader all but admitted that government officials are incapable of delivering public works. When he suggested that willing private companies or industrialists take up the task of supervising the construction of roads, he was not only shifting the responsibility to private individuals, but was also resigned to the fact that public officials cannot do the job satisfactorily.
This is the same mindset that causes politicians to suggest that private companies ‘adopt’ parks, lakes and other public amenities under corporate social responsibility. It is also the logic that puts the onus of fulfilling the right to education on private schools because they do a better job of it.
In the face of such buck passing, the first question that one should ask is just what then is the government for and what it is doing with public funds. But that is a topic for another day. Equally interesting is the practical question of what needs to be done in the face of the open secret that the administrative machinery of governments is incapable of delivering such basic goods as roads, water and drainage.
The problem seems to be in the way the administration is structured, its human resource management, the rules under which it operates and so on. If not, why is it that the Bengaluru airport and its environs are comparable to the best in the world while the city suffers from congestion, ugliness and apathy? Or why cantonments, industrial townships, academic campuses and technology parks are better maintained than the surrounding municipal areas?
The difference is not in the people—they are all cut of the same cloth—but in the governance structure. So, from our own experience, we know that some ways to govern deliver better than others. But our public discourse has completely neglected how we could identify and expand better governance models.
On the economic side, we have made an attempt, even if it is a feeble one. Our special economic zones (SEZs) are microscopic compared to China’s, but even so have delivered growth, employment and a better quality of life. There is a case to expand them vastly.
What I am proposing is different: what if we create ‘special governance zones’ or SGZs? If the idea behind SEZs is to waive taxes and relax regulations, SGZs would have the same taxes and regulations as elsewhere, but with different administrative set-ups.
This is not an entirely new idea. Electronics City, just outside Bengaluru’s city limits, is administered by Electronic City Industrial Township Authority (ELCITA), a technocratic administration comprising representatives of the firms and local communities of the area. It does a better job of managing the area under its charge, despite a narrower remit than a full-fledged municipal body.
Unlike municipalities, though, it is able to hire professionals with qualifications and track records in town planning, civil and environmental engineering, project management, finance and procurement.
ELCITA is an innovation in governance models. I am sure there are others across India. Some of the smart city projects have shown promise. A national SGZ policy would allow for greater experimentation and expansion. Unless we believe that sticking to a colonial British model of municipal government, with the added Indian characteristic of government jobs being seen as entitlements of caste-based electoral politics, we need to find better ways to govern ourselves.
Unlike SEZs where extant rules are set aside, the goal of SGZs should be to show how the Constitution and laws of India can be applied in a more effective way.
One way to implement SGZs is to carve out a part of an existing municipality. This will not only show which of the two is better governed, but might also spark competition between them. Another way is to create new cities—which are necessary for India’s continued growth and employment anyway—under different governance structures.
Paul Romer’s ‘charter cities’ offer one such model. Maharashtra’s Magarpatta and Andhra Pradesh’s Sri City offer private developer-driven models. Then there are older models like Jamshedpur and Bokaro. The SGZ policy should allow state governments and local communities to adopt innovative administrative models.
I do not like the idea of carving out special zones and creating an exclusive space that those within it can enjoy. Rather, the purpose of SEZs or SGZs should be to discover what works better and then spread it across the rest of the country. SEZs tell us what regulations India should get rid of. Similarly, SGZs will tell us how we should reform and restructure municipal administration.
Political leaders across parties and the country will acknowledge that their developmental agenda is limited by what the administration can deliver. Administrative reform is hard and is strongly resisted by administrators. Further, it is unclear if a top-down reform of a complex system will work as intended. It might be more practical to set-up SGZs that create space for administrative innovation, let local communities experiment and then figure out how to spread the improvements across the country.
The author is co-founder and director of The Takshashila Institution, an independent centre for research and education in public policy.
Post Comment