A few months ago I attended the launch of Rohini Nilekani’s latest book, ‘Uncommon Ground’, in which she brings a selection of the country’s leading industrialists and social activists together to “explore the middle ground between the ideological divisions that often polarise the business and voluntary sectors”, and deals with questions such as why, despite decades of liberalisation, does economic prosperity with social inclusion remain a distant goal. The event consisted of a panel discussion chaired by Nilekani with guest speakers Nikhil Dey and Gautam Thapur[1] [2]. The former played a major role in the introduction of the Right to Information Act and the latter currently runs a private corporation which provides goods and services from power generation and distribution to the manufacture of paper and pulp.

My interest in this conversation was in the views of the bazaar (businesses) and the samaaj (citizens) represented by Thapur and Dey respectively.  I was curious to hear their suggestions about how the two should interact and the most appropriate ways for citizens to hold businesses accountable. To this end, there were three sets of comments that stood out for me. First, the importance of accountability mechanisms considering the sources of India’s recent growth; second, the need for such mechanisms considering changes to the demands of citizens; and third, the implications for citizens themselves.

My first reflection was triggered by Thapur’s suggestion that over the last 20 years, India’s growth has been predominantly built upon 3 sources – natural resources, land and licensed businesses – the first two of which are extremely public in nature and intrinsic to the livelihood of numerous communities. Dey pointed out how the development of these sources can be particularly contentious due to the fact that for many in India land is one of the precious few things they own or have a sense of belonging to. Consequently, any sudden or insensitive appropriation of land and/or resources from citizens often unsettles communities and breaks important bonds that have existed for generations, effects which are extremely difficult to place a value on. If Thapur and Dey are right, their points underline the need for appropriate transparency mechanisms between citizens and businesses. If India is to grow in a way that fosters social inclusion, proper mechanisms for highlighting and addressing negative externalities and impacts on society of business decisions need to be in place.

The second (and related) set of comments that struck me relates to how the demands of citizens have changed over the years. Specifically, the panel considered the increasingly active role played by social sector and non-governmental organisations as well as the readiness of public and press to protest and campaign. Dey offered a simplified explanation of the social inclusion problem in relation to businesses, that while the government exists to serve the interests of the public, it can come across as more consistently serving the interests of the private sector. Thapur recognised this perception but felt any such negative impacts were being increasingly mitigated because, in his view, people no longer tolerate being told what to do and increasingly want to be consulted.

Thapur’s view is encouraging for those working to strengthen participatory democracy. Indeed, in India, attention over the past few years has focussed on strengthening consultative processes with respect to the government. But the wider implication of Thapur’s suggestion is that there is scope for private enterprise to play a greater role in the shaping of communities if planning processes were stronger (ie. the way local governments decide about business ventures in their areas). The UK, for example, has successfully done this under the Section 106 Agreement in the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) which is used by local councils as a requirement of developers of large developments. It involves public consultation, an assessment of the social and economic costs and benefits and a needs assessment to ensure the benefits are maximised for the community.  This way, an official consultative process acts as a check against business decisions.

My last point is more of an observation than a comment on what was said. Throughout the discussion, there was an implicit assumption that what was required was for citizens to be able to hold either the government and/or businesses accountable so that social inclusion could be brought about. But what about citizens themselves? Don’t the public yearn for cheaper and cheaper goods and services? Don’t we want things to be faster, more accessible, more premium but low cost? And is our sense of civic responsibility developed enough to consistently make socially considered purchasing decisions? After all, I was under the impression that market mechanisms respond to demand. Hence, if we demanded goods and services that fulfilled certain social criteria – as is happening in the markets for fair trade coffee and chocolate – wouldn’t the market be forced to provide these?

Thapur’s response to my question was clear – it was not necessarily the case that business decisions that accounted for social impacts led to increased cost and hence, higher prices for consumers. Basically, we can have both.  And Dey was quick to admonish those consumers who favour low prices at the cost of social decision making, pointing out the irony of a ‘low-cost, high quality’ outcome. I don’t disagree with Dey and I hope Thapur is right, though I believe there remains a need to consider how and under what conditions the public holds itself accountable considering the significant role it plays in providing the demand for businesses in the first place.

 

---

[1] N.Dey works for the MKSS(Mazdoor Kishan Shakti Sangthan), Suchna Evum Rozgar Adhikar Abhiyan and NCPRI(National Campaign for People’s Right to Information). G.Thapur is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Avantha Group.