A moment’s insight is sometimes worth a life’s experience. ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes
Once a gentleman gave me with incredible insight in the development sector where NGOs follows a simple rule --- "Piss Less, Spread More". This appeared cynical to some extent and sounds profane first. But people had longer career talking on development than doing it. Shows which is easier !This conversation caused me to look at life from a whole new perspective in the development sector. NGOs are currently less concerned on quality of work and strive for better communication strategy for social media, donors & another players. Brand image of NGOs is made up on good will and less on actual impact of their work. The unfortunate irony is that all too often, rhetoric and symbolism replace logic and action in the hallowed portals of the NGO conferences.
Let us never forget that not all NGOs have been necessarily formed for altruistic reasons!
There is neither Perfect Market Competition nor Perfect Community Cooperation. The middle path of community owned enterprise competing in the market has always both social capital and market presence. The rise of the creative economy encourages self-interest over collective action in the society, but all is not lost. There is a Value-proposition for setting FPO (Farmer Producer Organization). Udaipur Agro Producer Company Limited, (UAPCL) is one such producer company focused on strengthening the livelihoods of the community. Here is the glimpse through this video in which yours truly has small part -
Do you know about Confirmation Bias ? People more likely to believe information that fits their pre-existing beliefs, but they’re also more likely to go looking for such information. Hence, we are stuck with wrong design of the development programs dooming millions of investment. So, we do not let evidence from the ground guide the policy? Unfortunately, it is hard to get clear-cut evidence of causality. Using evidence to guide aid and social work is crucial to ensuring the efficient use of limited resources. For years, policymakers have debated different approaches to helping the poor and now they have published research paper after a nine-year, six-country study, offers resounding evidence for a strategy that works. Proponents of randomized program evaluation argued more field experiments were needed to learn what worked.
There are also critiques like economist Angus Deaton who suspects that an average bureaucrat might take the results in controlled environment too serious. Any aid to poor really ought to be decided by democratic discussion between stakeholders while RCTs are often done on the poor without any partnership is hardly an encouraging sign.
This led my interest in the executive education program offered by Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL). I was among 31 executives selected for the course held on July 2015. This five-day program on evaluating social programs provided a thorough understanding of randomized evaluations and pragmatic step-by-step training for conducting one’s own evaluation. RCT measures impact of the program by comparing a treatment group to a control group, where the people who get the treatment are drawn randomly by lottery. There was emphasis on building theory of change for seeking an impact of the program.
I enjoyed great atmosphere of learning in those five days. Thanks to Sharanya Chandran, Dechen Zem, Diwaker Basnet, Chandra Shekhar Gowda, Rajeev Kumar and Rajesh Jain. And I learn a valuable lesson that ideas should be funded based on evidence that they work — not hope.
How to build a theory of change for an impact evaluation
As per Prof Cornel West, Democracy always raises the fundamental question: What is the role of the most disadvantaged in the public interest? The catch in the valid question lies in the definition of the 'Disadvantage Class/Caste'. The definition of "Who are they" varies among politicians, academics, and policymakers. Any major program in any sector can't be effective without a robust information system. The road to social justice for all should be based on solid data for understanding ground realities.
SECC data is out. This census takes caste into account for the first time in any such exercise since 1931. But the government is hiding OBC numbers. The previous government led by the Congress had also decided to conduct a caste-based census, but not to make the data public. The reasons for withholding this data can only be political. Data on economic indicators, with special enumeration of SCs and STs, is done by the regular census as well. SECC was commissioned because many parties wanted similar numbers for the OBCs to pitch for political mileage. However, it is always tough to digest that SECC was done to mitigate the absence of large-scale, credible, and empirical data for public policy. But, it is a matter of time before the numbers are made public.
There was once a huge hue and cry over caste census as being labeled as divisive by upper caste-dominated groups. Prof. Kancha Ilaiah had explained this in his article: Who’s afraid of caste census? --- "Caste culture is all around us. In the dalit-bahujan discourse, the upper castes are being shown as constituting less than 15 per cent. This could be totally wrong. Even within the lower castes there are several false claims about numbers. Every caste claims that it is numerically the strongest and keeps asking for its “rightful” share. How to tell them that their claims are wrong? When caste has become such an important category of day-to-day reckoning it is important to have proper data at hand to tell communities that they constitute this much and cannot ask for more than their share. It is true that we cannot distribute everything based on caste. But caste census is the right basis for statistics such as literacy rate and issues like the proportion of representation. Once we cite the Census data there cannot be any authentic opposition to that evidence."
There is unquestionable value in a general policy of reservation as merit can't be the only criteria for granting subsidies and quotas. Social Justice and economic barriers also need to be fulfilled for deciding such national/state-level policies. Despite deep affiliation with caste groups, the public is ready and eager to advance toward a more transparent and accountable society. And, making SECC data publicly available would improve transparency in the political debates if not direct action leading to better governance.
The bigger question isn't the availability of the data but the lack of willpower to implement the policy. There is all the required data available for STs in the census yet there is a siphoning of funds allocated to SC/STs. (Systemic denial and diversion of budgetary allocations). Many departments have failed miserably in allocating funds and even spending that minor fund for the TSP as per the proportion of the tribal population of the state. The manipulation made by the bureaucracy and political leaders in making the decision to divert the TSP fund showed a huge contrast between public policy and data-based evidence. Also, there is a deafening silence on Gender Budgeting (GB) in the corridors of power. So we have a country where no one pays heed to independent minds seeking evidence-based policy in the social sector. In such a political system, one has to learn to manipulate rather than simply put the case.
A pure functioning meritocracy would produce a society with growing inequality, but that inequality would come along with a correlated increase in social mobility. Is this really happening across caste and religion? We can only guess policy as there is not yet sufficient data for planning on caste-based issues. SECC data would even regenerate healthy debate between two groups proposing - either 'caste-blind &class-based' or 'caste & class based' type of affirmative action. The best way to improve the quality of the debate is by providing individuals with the data to make informed choices in a democratic country. SECC data is crucial for making sound evidence-based plans, it helps us understand what justice is so that appropriate policy can be made for the Disadvantaged class/caste.
