The Hindu : National : `Inadequate knowledge of foreign experts worrying'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Sep 30, 2004

National

National

`Inadequate knowledge of foreign experts worrying'

By T. Ramakrishnan

CHENNAI, SEPT. 29. The opposition to the inclusion of experts from foreign institutions in the Planning Commission's consultative committee stems, not from `xenophobia,' but from concern that such experts will have "inadequate knowledge" about Indian conditions, says A. Vaidyanathan, professor emeritus of the Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS) and former Planning Commission member.

In an interview to The Hindu , Prof. Vaidyanathan said experts from foreign countries had been consulted on developmental issues since the First Plan. "We had extraordinarily creative relationships with them. Both benefited. Nevertheless, they were never part of councils of the Government," he said.

In the present case, however, only the World Bank, which sends supervision missions to examine projects it funds, was aware of the ground realities of development. "What do the others have? They are well-meaning people. Probably, they have considerable experience abroad. They want to help. Do they have enough first-hand knowledge about what is happening in this country?" he asked.

Pointing out that two sets of experts were involved in the issue, Prof. Vaidyanathan said one group belonged to multilateral agencies such as the World Bank, while the other belonged to private foreign consulting agencies.

Going by its history of involvement in India or elsewhere, the World Bank policy prescriptions and focus on different sectors "changed with time and in tune with changing fashions in their intellectual establishment. They do not spend anything at all on an objective assessment [of projects funded by the Bank]. The spirit of learning from experience is not particularly strong in the Bank." He added that "the level of insight and fresh knowledge" in the multilateral agency's periodic sector reviews was "pretty small."

As for the private foreign consulting agencies, the veteran economist said that their primary interest was business proposition. "Their central concern is not to improve the knowledge base and contribute to social policy. They do not do sustained and rigorous work on particular themes of importance."

Invariably, such experts prescribe privatisation of health, education and water instead of suggesting improvements in public systems. "The public systems are essential in many of these things. Many of them should not be privatised because they are in the nature of social consumption goods. Equity considerations are very important. So, the real problem is: How do you make the public systems work? That is not the focus in much of the discussion that is going on."

He said the inclusion of several representatives from one particular consulting agency raised serious questions. Another issue was the omission of Indian consulting agencies.

Prof. Vaidyanathan, who served on the Planning Commission during 1990-91, however, made it clear that he was not against having "structured and focussed" interaction on specific issues and problems with any expert "outside the formal process of Government."

If the Government was keen on getting inputs from different sections, it could bring together renowned individuals, researchers, civil servants, non-governmental organisations and consulting firms and arrange for "focussed interaction on critical issues" in various sectors.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News Update

Stories in this Section