Author: cprindia

FULL VIDEO OF TALK
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CLIMATE RESEARCH

Watch the full video (above) of the talk by Dr Narasimha Rao, where he presents new results on the energy and climate impacts of providing everyone with a basic living standard, defined for the first time in material terms, but based on universal principles of human well-being.

Based on a bottom-up analysis, the results from Dr Rao’s study not only inform future energy policy priorities, but also provide a basis to assess climate justice from a human rights perspective.

THE MOST VISIBLE PROGRAMME REMAINS INVISIBLE ON THE GROUND, ACCOUNTABILITY INITIATIVE FINDS
BUDGET SANITATION SOCIAL SECTOR SCHEMES

BUREAUCRACY
October 2 marked the second anniversary of the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), the Government of India’s (GoI) flagship programme to achieve the goal of total sanitation by 2019. We bring to you findings from a recent study by Accountability Initiative (AI) at CPR, which analyses what has been achieved over the past two years. AI conducted a household survey of 7500 rural households in 10 districts spread across five states (Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan) in December 2015. In the conversation below with Yamini Aiyar, Avani Kapur and Vikram Srinivas, we unpack the reality on the ground.

Where are we after two years of the Swachh Bharat Mission in rural India?

Yamini: Let me start by laying out what we have achieved. I think one of the most important things that we achieved on 2 October 2014 with the photo-ops of the Prime Minister and other senior government officials sweeping the streets of Delhi, and the announcement of making India open defecation free by 2019, is that for the first time the political establishment staked their political capital on achieving sanitation. For those of us who have been following sanitation policy for a while, this was a very significant change from the past when sanitation was largely ignored. This change is also very visible on the ground. In every single district that the AI team works in or has travelled to over the past two years, the entire administration is talking about the need to implement the Swachh Bharat Mission. The political pressure at the top has made sanitation a key implementation priority in the districts.

Another important change is a shift in rhetoric about the intended target and goal of the programme. One of the biggest limitations of sanitation policy, now widely acknowledged, is the belief that toilet construction alone will lead to achieving sanitation. Rather, sanitation is about behaviour change that can lead to creating an open defecation free environment.

Lastly, there is some movement towards measurement–the GoI’s Drinking Water and Sanitation Department has recently made public data from the NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation) survey on sanitation, including an attempt to rank districts on the basis of open defecation free declarations. There are many flaws in these measurement efforts. However, the fact that an effort is being made to pursue third party measurement is an important first step.

Thanks for sharing the achievements. Given this shift in policy environment, do we actually see a change on the ground?

Yamini: To understand this, AI conducted a sample survey of 7500 households in 10 districts spread across five states to study the process of implementation of the SBM. The original idea of the survey was to draw on households that have reported to have constructed toilets as claimed in the data made available by the Swachh Bharat Mission Portal on its Management Information System (MIS). However, owing to a number of limitations in the current data base a full-fledged audit was not possible. Hence our survey studied the SBM in two ways. 1500 of our sample comprised households whose names featured in the MIS and the remaining were randomly selected.

So what are the data gaps?

Avani: As Yamini mentioned, we had hoped to track villages, households and habitations through the MIS data, but unfortunately, the quality of the data did not allow us to do so. For instance, census codes were not provided making it difficult for us to match village names, habitation names were often misclassified, and in many instances, we were unable to find households mentioned in the list. A closer look at the lists also pointed to a number of duplicate entries (of names and even Aadhaar numbers!).

So can you share findings were from the survey of households, which featured in the MIS lists?

Avani: To begin with we found that featuring in the governments’ MIS is no guarantee that the household actually has a toilet. We found about 29% of the households, which according to the MIS data had toilets, in fact did not have toilets. There were district variations. For instance, Nalanda and Udaipur had the largest gaps between the toilets reported and the actual presence of these as compared to other districts like Satara, where this was not the case.

Second, having a toilet does not mean that it is usable. We found that 36% of households themselves reported that the toilets in their homes were unusable (for reasons such as broken pits, unsanitary conditions etc.); of these, the usability numbers were also lowest in Udaipur and Nalanda.

Vikram: According to the SBM guidelines, every eligible household that constructs a toilet, and subsequently applies for an incentive grant is entitled to receive Rs. 12000 from the government. We found that even if a household featured on the MIS list, which means they ought to have received money from the government, as many as 40% households whose names featured in the MIS did not receive money from the government. There are district variations again. For instance, in Jhalawar 40% did not receive the money, while in Satara 90% did.

What about the rest of your sample? What can you say broadly about the implementation of SBM?

Yamini: In order for the government to achieve its goal of an open defecation free India by 2019, it set for itself a target of constructing 11 crore toilets. To achieve this, the government has to focus on two critical components: i) the first raising awareness and fostering behavior change; ii) facilitating/ supporting toilet construction. We assessed the implementation of the SBM from both these aspects.

Our most startling finding is that despite the policy rhetoric, the ceiling of expenditure on awareness raising had dropped from 15% under the previous Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan to 8% under Swachh Bharat Mission. A closer look at the expenditure data also showed that this money was largely unspent across most states. Expenditure on Information Education and Communication (IEC)–government parlance for awareness programs–decreased from 8% of total expenditure in 2013-14 to 1% in 2015-16.

This lack of focus on awareness raising is very visible on the ground. For instance: an important innovation introduced under the SBM was the creation of a cadre of volunteers known as Swachhta Doots responsible for spreading door to door awareness; yet only 6% of the households surveyed were aware of these Swachhta Doots. Further, only 10% reported having any knowledge of the Panchayat Swachhta Samiti–this being the case even though Panchayats have been conceptualised to play a crucial role in ensuring local buy-in. Similarly, only 10% reported that awareness programmes on sanitation were conducted in their villages, while a mere 3% of the households reported being visited by a government official to explain the benefits of the programme.

All of this may seem counter intuitive, as anyone who has travelled around India would have noticed that nearly every village wall has a painted symbol or slogan of the Swachh Bharat Mission, and there is a buzz amongst officials across all districts we visited. Yet our survey shows that this buzz is still to translate into action on ground.

One important issue that we noticed during our field work is that districts are following standardised templates provided by the central government on how to build awareness. There is very little focus on building more local and direct engagement with the people involving actors like Swachhta Doots. It is equally important to create a concerted focus on the public health consequences of sanitation and hence the need for toilets. That is an important missing link–both administratively in terms of coordination between health and sanitation departments, as well as in terms of the messaging. The point needs to be driven home that the ultimate benefit of an open defecation free environment is ensuring quality public health outcomes.

Avani: The second critical component, as mentioned by Yamini, is the construction of toilets. Even today, two years into the programme, the lack of overall coverage of toilets and the continued presence of open defecation is a serious issue. Our survey found that only 37% of households had toilets in Jhalawar, 27% in Udaipur, and 58% in Jaipur in Rajasthan. Similarly, coverage was 23% and 33% in the districts of Nalanda and Purnia in Bihar respectively, and 40% in Sagar in Madhya Pradesh.

Yet, the picture is not all bleak. The pace of construction has undoubtedly accelerated in the last two years (since April 2014) with specific targeting of those districts, which had low toilet coverage according to Census 2011. For instance, in a district like Jhalawar, which only had 7% coverage in Census 2011, 81% of the toilets today have been built in the past two years.

However, there is an interesting observation here. Most people built toilets without government assistance: only one-fourth of the households that constructed toilets in the past two years received government grants. Further, the average cost of construction in most districts (except Sagar and Nalanda) was between Rs. 20,000–40,000, while the government grant is for only Rs. 12000.

Thanks for highlighting the issues with awareness raising and toilet coverage. But what about usage? This has often been mentioned as a critical lacuna in sanitation drives.

Vikram: It is encouraging to observe that with the exception of three of the districts we surveyed, most people who had toilets did use them. However, in the districts of Udaipur, Nalanda and Sagar, usage continues to be a problem despite the presence of toilets. For instance, 26% of households in Udaipur, 17% in Sagar, and 13% in Nalanda reported that at least one member of the household defecated in the open despite having a fully constructed toilet.

Yamini: An important thing that the usage data highlights is how difficult it is to actually track usage! We spoke to a number of sanitation experts before designing the usage question since the way you ask, how you ask, whom you ask, and how often you ask can all have consequences on the responses you may get. According to many experts, and even in our own experience, the best way to track and understand usage is through a deeper, qualitative case-study based approach. This may necessitate a different approach to monitoring. Usage may not be trackable through large scale surveys. Rather the government will need to build networks with anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists and others familiar with qualitative surveys to track usage effectively.

Based on your findings and understanding of the situation on the ground, what is the way forward to realise a Swachh Bharat?

Avani: Let us summarise what we recommend based on our survey findings:

• Data quality: There need to be independent checks and verification of the MIS data. Audits both by government machinery as well as third party evaluations are key.
• Awareness: it needs to be reiterated that it is important to establish the link between the need for an open defecation free environment and the resultant public health benefits at all levels, which is likely to generate greater uptake. The method employed needs to be direct, targeted, one-to-one communication, especially through generating local champions and building a movement. On the contrary, currently, one of the best practices put out by the government is the use of punitive measures, including vigilante groups and naming and shaming tactics, which is problematic.
• Improved monitoring: For every single aspect of the programme, whether it is awareness raising or verification of toilet construction, the government is meant to and must monitor. However, we found that monitoring is very low at present, which also feeds into the poor quality of MIS data, making tracking progress difficult.

FULL VIDEO OF BOOK DISCUSSION
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS

Watch the full video (above) of the book discussion on ‘How the BJP Wins: Inside India’s Greatest Election Machine’, between author and well-known journalist Prashant Jha, and CPR’s in-house election expert and Senior Fellow, Neelanjan Sircar. The discussion explored in detail the BJP’s formidable election machine with authority and insight.

CLEARING THE AIR: MONTHLY COLUMN IN THE HINDUSTAN TIMES BY NAVROZ K DUBASH
AIR POLLUTION POLITICS

In the fifth instalment of a monthly op-ed series in the Hindustan Times entitled ‘Clearing the Air,’ Professor Navroz K Dubash explains why India must get serious about land, air and water reform to avoid a middle income environment trap.

With 15 years of high growth, India is now firmly a middle income country. Can India at 75 sustain this growth, or will it fall into the “middle income trap” that has plagued other emerging nations? The middle income trap results when growth is undercut by the changes it induces, such as East Asia’s low-wage labour-led growth undercut by rising wages in response to prosperity.

What are the risks of a middle income trap for India, and what is the likely driver? While cheap labour may not be a problem, India’s Achilles’ heel is likely to be the inefficient use of natural resources and growing pollution levels. According to the World Bank’s “Systematic Country Diagnostic,” India has less land and water available, and greater pollution, at lower levels of gross domestic product (GDP) than other middle income countries. India’s middle income trap is likely to be a natural resources and environment trap.

What could the new government do to ensure it does not fall deeper into a middle income environment trap? Clearly, past governments’ approach of sacrificing environment for growth makes the problem worse. Instead, a more nuanced approach is needed that looks at growth and natural resources as complementary objectives. Policy notes produced at the Centre for Policy Research provide some ideas for reform on the core issues of land, air and water.

First, disputes over land exert an enormous drag on the economy affecting investments worth USD 200 billion. Some 66% of civil cases in courts are tied to land and property. As Namita Wahi, a fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, explains, the problem lies in a complex, inconsistent land acquisition framework — an estimated 102 laws — coinciding with widespread local conflict over use and control over common lands governed by another set of statutes and conventions. With multiple ministries involved, and high rates of judicial pendency, ensuring peoples’ rights even while enabling land for economic development has become a Gordian knot.

The government must make a start on unpicking this knot, although this effort cannot come at the risk of running roughshod over peoples’ rights to the commons. Administratively, bridging separate rural and urban land use issues, reducing administrative fragmentation, and enabling transparency are all necessary. As this discussion suggests, unpicking the land problem is deeply tied to larger challenges of making the Indian state work better.

Second, India’s air pollution crisis is severe and requires attention beyond current scattershot efforts. For example, it is estimated to reduce the life expectancy of a child born in India by 2.6 years — more than that in hotspots like north India. To begin with, a few big-ticket ideas should be implemented swiftly and thoroughly. These include revamping Ujjwala to provide sustained LPG use for cooking; enforcing new power plant standards; implementing improved fuel quality standards; and massively increasing investments in public transport to ensure India’s cities are not locked into private mobility. These won’t solve the problem entirely, but they are a down-payment on credible action. To progress beyond these immediate measures requires a serious upgrade of our pollution control boards at the Centre and states; India’s air pollution cannot be solved without stronger regulatory institutions. Finally, a city by city approach has to rapidly give way to a broader airshed approach.

Third, water deserves to be high on the policy agenda; the Niti Aayog has warned that India’s water is in a crisis situation. Many states face acute water scarcity, water available per Indian declines every year, monsoons are becoming erratic, and water tables are falling even as we grow ever more dependent on groundwater. As Philippe Cullet, a senior visiting fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, suggests, the underlying challenge is one of water governance. Laws governing water use are inconsistent between surface and groundwater, groundwater law allows landowners control over pumping irrespective of the costs to others and to the aquifer, governance is scattered across institutions at multiple scales, and rules do not cater adequately to urban and rural differences.

These governance problems could be ameliorated by taking forward a National Water Framework bill to provide a single unifying frame of reference for water policy. Another important effort is a complementary Model Groundwater (Sustainable Management) Bill to take forward with states. Both efforts rest on long deliberation starting in 2011 by the UPA government and taken forward in 2015 by the NDA government. While implementation challenges will remain, new framework legislation will lay a platform to help ease India’s water governance woes.

If India is to avoid a middle income environment trap, we have to get serious about land, air and water reform. But there is an important caution. Reform should not be understood as an uncritical hacking away of legal and administrative safeguards, some of which are put in place to protect the poor and vulnerable who depend on natural resources for livelihood. Instead, in all three cases, the underlying challenges are governance-related: ensuring availability of resources, without degrading their quality, and while safeguarding the interests of the poor.

Navroz K Dubash is a Professor at the Centre for Policy Research. This is the fifth article in a monthly op-ed series in the Hindustan Times entitled ‘Clearing the Air.’ The original article, which was posted on June 19, 2019, can be found here.

Read more in the Clearing the Air series:

AN ANALYSIS IN THE RUN-UP
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS

As 8 November approaches, read CPR researchers Neelanjan Sircar, Bhanu Joshi and Ashish Ranjan’s latest piece from the field on what is the likely result of the Bihar elections.

With no clear answer, their field observations analyse the importance of and the difference between the ground-level campaigns run by the Grand Alliance and the NDA. Whatever be the final outcome, the impact of the results of these elections will reverberate throughout Indian politics, they write.

FULL AUDIO OF THE PANEL DISCUSSION
ECONOMY

Listen to the audio (above) of the panel discussion on ‘Human Rights, Economic Development, Mega Projects and their Impacts’, where panelists R Sreedhar from Mines, Minerals and People; Namita Wahi from CPR, Natalia Angelo Cabo, from University of Los Andes, Bogota, and Komala Ramachandra from Accountability Counsel discussed the different dimensions of the impacts of development oriented mega projects on the lives and livelihoods of the poorest and most marginalised communities, both in India and Colombia.

The panelists spoke about the direct relation between resource extractions and human rights violations in India; the need for regulatory norms in carrying out environmental and social impact assessments of infrastructure projects; and the role civil society can play in attempting to ensure accountability of multilateral financial institutions that finance such projects at the cost of human rights.

FULL VIDEO OF LECTURE
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ECONOMY

Watch the full video (above) of the lecture by Aravind Subramanian, where he uses a historical lens to analyse the future trajectory of globalisation, in light of the recent global developments.

In recent years, the international system has witnessed a series of developments which possibly portend tectonic shifts in the global political economy. In this talk, Subramanian examines and contextualises these developments to understand what they mean for the open global system and for India’s role in it.

Arvind Subramanian is the Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, on leave from his position as the Dennis Weatherstone Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. He has written on growth, trade, development, institutions, aid, oil, India, Africa, and the World Trade Organisation, and has published widely in academic and other journals.

PART 4 OF A BLOG SERIES BY THE CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH (CPR) AND PRAYAS (ENERGY GROUP)
ENERGY RESEARCH

The series is titled ‘Plugging in: Electricity consumption in Indian Homes’.

Electricity consumption debates, for the most part, focus on high-rise residential and commercial establishments, often ignoring low-income housing. The rationale for this omission is the low level of electricity use in affordable housing, with the assumption that little is at stake from its consideration in national energy and climate debates. This, however, may no longer be true.

As India urbanises, housing has been unable to keep pace. The housing shortage is reported to be near 19 million units, with low-income households accounting for the largest proportion. The government’s ‘Housing for All’ programme aims to fill this gap by providing affordable housing for 20 million households by 2022. This new construction will partly condition future energy use from the provision of basic services, with increased access to electricity and commercial appliance markets. In this post, we examine the most basic use of electricity within affordable homes – lighting.

Lighting forms a large share of electricity services availed by low-income homes and consequently the electricity bill. Technologically, LED bulbs provide the largest reduction in lighting electricity consumption, without reducing the amount of light provided, and with a lifespan that is up to 25 times that of an ordinary bulb. However, LED bulbs cost more, which can deter the willingness of households to pay. As described in this series’ previous post, the government’s UJALA scheme has increased the use of LEDs by bringing down costs and increasing awareness. However, the programme’s impacts on low income households, those with the potential for maximum benefits, are not yet clear.

Are lower income households purchasing technologically advanced LED bulbs? We conducted a survey in 2017, about a year after the launch of the UJALA scheme, in Rajkot, Gujarat to examine lighting services in low-income homes. This is part of an ongoing study on energy use in low income urban households under the CapaCITIES project. We find LED penetration in the sample surveyed is remarkably high at 63% of all bulbs (Figure 1).

Figure 1: LED penetration in the affordable housing sample (stock level)
Source: Rajkot affordable housing energy survey (Khosla et al., in preparation)

Household assets and LED penetration

To understand this high rate of LED use, we categorise results according to the three types of government affordable housing: BSUP or Basic Services for the Urban Poor (built 2007 onwards); EWS or Economically Weaker Sections; and LIG or Low Income Groups housing (EWS and LIG are built under the Housing for All programme, 2015 onwards) (Figure 2). The categories broadly correlate to income – BSUP residents, on average, being the poorest in the sample, and LIG, the best off.

Figure 2: Household LED penetration rates
Source: Rajkot affordable housing energy survey (Khosla et al., in preparation)

Figure 2 shows that the widespread use of LEDs is especially true for EWS and LIG categories, with more than 90% having at least one LED. Tube lights, CFLs, and incandescent bulbs on the other hand have lower penetration rates in these homes. Further, homes are buying more than one LED. The mode number of LEDs in a EWS home is three, and in LIG homes is five. This is within the number provided under the UJALA scheme in Rajkot, which is up to 10 subsidised LEDs per home at Rs. 80 per 9W bulb.

We also find that LED ownership, standardised for home sizes, is correlated with household assets or their ability to consume (Figure 3). Richer homes buy more LEDs, though a degree of incandescent bulbs persist in the system. And while Figures 2 and 3 show a strikingly high rate of LED use, they also show that not all homes have made this transition. Specifically, BSUP homes – which are of the lowest-income of the three categories – have about half the LED penetration compared with EWS and LIG homes (Figure 2) and the mode number of LEDs owned in BSUP homes is zero.

igure 3: Lighting ownership across the consumption asset index (standardized for number of rooms)
Source: Rajkot affordable housing energy survey (Khosla et al., in preparation)
Awareness of the LED scheme

Why do some households buy LEDs and others don’t? Is the difference a function of households’ awareness of the LED scheme (Figure 4)?

Figure 4: Awareness rates of the LED and Smart Cities schemes
Source: Rajkot affordable housing energy survey (Khosla et al., in preparation)
Awareness of the LED scheme maps on to the ownership of LED bulbs in housing types. EWS and LIG homes are much more aware about the scheme, and own many more LEDs, while the reverse is true for BSUP. To test if awareness about government schemes was generally high, or whether this was particular to UJALA, we also asked households of their awareness of the Smart City scheme which is well advertised in the city. Less than 1% of households reported awareness of this flagship city scheme – compared with high awareness of UJALA.

At the same time, it is not that all households know about the LED scheme – especially not the poorer BSUP homes. We find from discussions with residents that the most successful scheme awareness measure was the information that persons (predominantly men) got at the local utility bill payment centre. Bill payers could purchase LEDs at the payment centre itself, including with no upfront cost and monthly instalments, an option available by a third of the purchasers as per scheme representatives. Learning about a money saving scheme at the point of bill payment worked well to motivate participation. In addition, media campaigns for the scheme were important for those who spent time watching TV or listening to the radio, especially women. However, homes with different circumstances, such as in the lower income BSUP homes – where electricity connections and payment structures could be informal; the radio and TV were used less; and bills were paid by younger family members because of multiple jobs – did not benefit similarly. In the next round of LED deployment, unpacking these differences in scheme awareness will be important to influence path dependent lighting use patterns.

In the next post, we move from lighting to appliances and examine the efficiency impacts from India’s standards and labeling programmes.

This piece is authored by Radhika Khosla and Ankit Bhardwaj at the Centre for Policy Research.

This blog series is also available on the Prayas website here.

Other posts in this series:

• Electricity Consumption in Indian Homes
• Trends in India’s Residential Electricity Consumption
• India’s LED Lighting Story
• The Efficiency of Appliances
• Appliances used in Affordable Housing
• Electrifying the National Capital Region
• Exploring the different uses of household appliances
• Role of human behaviour in driving electricity use

IN CONVERSATION WITH NEELANJAN SIRCAR, BHANU JOSHI AND ASHISH RANJAN
ELECTION STUDIES POLITICS

CPR researchers Neelanjan Sircar, Bhanu Joshi, and Ashish Ranjan did extensive field work in Assam and Bengal during the elections, and shared their insights on Upper Assam and Barak Valley; the Muslim vote in Assam; and on the Poriborton (change) brought about by Mamata Banerjee in Bengal.

Drawing on their field experience over the past couple of months, they share below their thoughts on the big wins for the BJP in Assam and the TMC in Bengal.

What are your thoughts on the TMC and Mamata Banerjee’s landslide victory in Bengal?

Neelanjan: The Left-Congress Alliance has been left in a very bad shape, and they will have to re-assess everything. To begin with they need to find a state level neta (leader) who resonates with the people, and identify a major gap that the TMC is not addressing. The problem was they had no real campaign issue this time. Interestingly, the Congress won many more seats than the Left, which has officially reduced the Left to the third party, despite it having a larger vote share.

Bhanu: In the absence of a political script for the Left-Congress Alliance, what we saw clearly was that rural Bengal was backing Mamata, and the Left had completely lost the rural connect. They will have to introspect and seriously think about how to rebuild this connect.

What this victory means for Mamata Banerjee is that she will have a strengthened position in the Rajya Sabha, and can negotiate more effectively with the Centre to mend the flagging finances of Bengal.

Ashish: Mamata Banerjee will also have to focus on the creation of new jobs, which is a huge demand, or things will be difficult in Bengal, going forward.

Neelanajan: Mamata’s ground-level control is crucial to her ability to deliver on promises, like roads. At the same, this same control has yielded a significant amount of fear and violence. This was evident during the election season. There is a real concern about this spinning out of control. It is an open question whether she can control it or not, but she must be wary of the possibility of the situation going awry, as it did for the Left.

Ashish: Due to her style of operating, which runs on her charismatic authority, Mamata Banerjee does not have an organisational structure, unlike the Left. If she cannot restrict goons in her party, either the cadre will rebel or leave the party. This would make things very difficult for her in 2021.

Thank you for those insights on what TMC’s victory means for Bengal. What are your thoughts on the BJP’s victory in Assam?

Bhanu: Assam is a very complex state, but the way it has voted decisively goes to show that the binaries we create to understand the political contexts no longer hold. The theory of vote-bank politics does not work, Muslims are no longer a vote-bank. Out of the 49 constituencies in districts with more than 50% Muslim population, 15 have voted for the BJP, and the rest are divided among the other parties. There is some complexity in the methodology but could we have thought five years ago that BJP would be ruling two states—Jammu and Kashmir and Assam—with the highest Muslim population? No.

Today, people are voting for development, and the BJP ran a much better campaign on the ground in Assam, focused on developmental issues. This shows that when political parties plan elections, they need to be very prepared because they are reaching out to a very sophisticated voter.

Ashish: Now that the BJP has come to power, it will be interesting to see how they manage the Bangladeshi Muslim migrant issue, which they have been ideologically opposed to.

Neelanjan: We have looked at three Eastern states so far, Bihar, Assam, and Bengal, and it is clear that the defining narrative has been of development—of a certain sort. Development that is extremely visible, tangible, and this has brought a new dimension back into politics. It indicates a certain kind of accountability that the voter now demands of the party in power, and this is a very positive trend, not just for the states, but for India as a whole.

NEW WORKING PAPER BY S CHANDRASEKHAR, MUKTA NAIK, SHAMINDRA NATH ROY
URBAN GOVERNANCE MIGRATION

Beyond summing up salient migration trends from existing data sources; a new working paper by researchers from Centre for Policy Research and Indira Gandhi Institute for Development Research (IGIDR) builds on a critique of the estimations made by the Economic Survey 2017 to outline fresh ideas for developing leading indicators that will help inform policy. This is particularly needed because even as Indian policymakers are increasingly recognising the linkages between migration, labour markets and economic development, the lack of frequently updated datasets limits our understanding of migration.

We recognise the contribution of the Economic Survey in using innovative approaches to measure migration, viz. the age cohort metric that tracks age-cohorts across census periods and the measurement of mobility through the sale of unreserved railway tickets. However, we also see limitations – for instance, the high levels of work-related movement outlined in the Survey seems to be at odds with the challenges India is facing with job creation and also incongruent with indicative data from Census 2011 that shows a decline in the importance of work in the reasons for migration. These inconsistencies need additional exploration.

The relatively low estimation of migration by the first method (Census 2011) and the higher estimation by the second (Economic Survey 2017) speaks to discrepancies in how we define and understand different kinds of mobilities and migration in the country. For instance, we discuss how the high levels of seasonal migration and commuter movement revealed by analysing Census and NSSO (National Sample Survey Office) data demands urgent policy response especially on transportation and mobility. In fact, given relatively stable geographies of migration in India, receiving states can leverage data to evolve migrant-inclusive policies with a focus on cities, which are increasingly important destinations for migrants. These may require specific interventions in affordable housing, transport, basic services, political inclusion, skilling and livelihood. Moreover, portability of social benefits for inter-State migrants is an urgent area where inter-State mechanisms need to be strengthened.

Following the Economic Survey’s effort, we contend that the exercise of improving data on migration and commuting need not be restricted to revamping government surveys. Innovative ways of improving collecting information and tracking movement could include leveraging administrative data collected by the government through digital databases ranging from sources like birth and death registrations to scheme-related data. Ticket sales data from state road transport corporations, especially on routes where daily commuting is the norm, would be particularly useful for commuting-intensive destinations. Trails of ‘big data’ left by user transactions and digital activity, particularly mobile phone usage, are also areas that must be explored, subject to privacy considerations. Triangulating multiple datasets is important to improve data-driven policy reforms that can help India plan for those individuals who change locations permanently as well as those who move seasonally.

The thinking for this paper has emerged from the extensive work on migration done under the Strengthen and Harmonize Research and Action on Migration (SHRAMIC) initiative supported by the Tata Trusts, in which IGIDR, CPR and the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) have been involved as knowledge partners. Further, many insights emerge from the authors’ involvement, in the capacity of members and research support, with the Working Group on Migration established by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Government of India and chaired by Partha Mukhopadhyay at CPR. Further impetus for the paper was provided by robust discussions on migration estimates fuelled by innovative approaches used in the Economic Survey 2017. The Economic and Political Weekly has recently accepted this paper for publication.