19 February 2019
0 Comments
Building rural roads has received a fillip under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) - II government with the pace of construction of rural roads having nearly doubled since 2014. Out of 1,58,013 habitations sanctioned by the Ministry of Rural Development to be connected under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), 1,44,398 habitations have already been connected. The ministry has also increased the budget of the PMGSY by 23 per cent from Rs. 15,500 crore in 2018-19 (RE) to Rs. 19,000 crore in 2019-20 (BE).
By all means this data seems like a piece of achievement worth celebrating in a country where rural infrastructure is in a shambles. However, some hard questions remain about the nature of political involvement and the benefits of this welfare programme. Who benefits from these roads and how much of a say do marginalised voices have in this process? And, is it possible to critique the commonsensical notion equating roads with development and ensure that people are fully aware of the effects of roads on their lives? While the government goes ahead with its plans to revamp road infrastructure in the country, it is critical to look into the pros and cons of such decisions. This piece refers to select media articles to discuss the impact of speedy road construction on different sections of population.
A recent analysis on rural road construction by Anjali Thomas Bohelken shows that state and central ministers facilitate and influence the pace, quantum and quality of the construction of roads in their partisan colleagues’ constituencies. At the same time, they tend to restrain local legislators from rent-seeking opportunities--such as “spending ‘leakages’, inefficiencies in contractor selection, the quality of road construction, and expenditures on unproductive projects.” Exercising restraint on local legislators helps ministers garner a higher share of the ‘leakages’ in a public works system and limit the erosion of the ruling party’s reputation among voters.
On similar lines, research by Lehne, Shapiro and Eynde (2017) suggests widespread corruption among sitting members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) over public procurement processes (such as the PMGSY) over which MLAs should theoretically exercise minimum control. They argue that there is significant evidence to suggest that roads construction contracts are awarded to contractors who are favoured by ministers and MLAs and that electoral success or the lack of it is a powerful motivator for the success or failures of the PMGSY.
Roads can be Harmful
Road constructions have rarely been innocuous. While the lack of roads often adversely affects an optimum quality of life and marginalises vulnerable populations from economic and social opportunities, the benefits of roads are not shared by all; roads often have winners and losers. An article in The Guardian has argued that the hailed interstate highway system of the United States, built after the Great Depression, brought greater opportunities for several White, middle-class communities, but cut off African American neighbourhoods from one another and jeopardised their economic and social opportunities, either through deliberate planning or through systemic failures.
Closer back home, the Andaman Trunk Road, which runs through the protected habitations of the ancient tribal populations of the Andaman Islands, has threatened the existence of the Jarawas. Rampant abuse of the tribal population, including sexual exploitation, suggests that the Andaman Trunk Road has not worked in favour of the tribals but has largely facilitated the entry of “outsiders” into territories that should have been left undisturbed.
Interestingly, it should be mentioned that our gaze may miss that there are beneficiaries other than rural populations who have a stake in the gains made by rural roads construction. On 1 February 2019, the stocks of the four largest cement companies in India were trading at a higher price with the increased allocation to the PMGSY. In fact, rural roads construction will reportedly generate more demand for cement than urban roads or highways, with nearly half of the overall cement demand from roads attributed to PMGSY.
Who Benefits from Roads?
The simple causal correlation between rural roads and increased prosperity, often flagged by political leaders and analysts alike, is no more a given. Research by economists Sam Asher and Paul Novosad suggests that while the rural roads programme has led to increased mobility and greater opportunities for non-farm work, it has not led to a significant increase in their income in the short term. This finding has political ramifications since roads constitute a highly visible and tangible public good and is perceived to be beneficial to politicians who seek votes on the basis of their involvement in fast-tracking or augmenting the construction of roads.
The rapid construction of rural roads and the obsession with opaque metrics that this government has displayed can also obfuscate ground realities. For instance, reports have indicated that an ‘overachieving’ state such as Himachal Pradesh (in terms of rural roads construction) has seen new sanctions at a record low, whereas earlier roads and highways are in an abysmal state of disrepair.
None of these pointers belittle the significance of roads construction in rural India. But once the dust settles on the euphoria of building rural roads, we can shed light on some interesting happenings from the recently concluded Chhattisgarh state elections that can subvert the popular notion that roads in themselves signal development. The Bharatiya Janata Party lost 11 out of 12 seats in Bastar and lost all 14 seats in Surguja (both of them are tribal-dominated districts). Interestingly, rural road building to connect adivasi hamlets was touted as one of the major achievements of the Raman Singh-led Chhattisgarh government. Although it cannot ascertained that adivasis have rejected the purported benefits of the rural roadworks programme, the correlation between roads, development and votes may be wearing thin[1].
Nobody in their right mind will doubt the theoretical efficacy of roads in uplifting and improving the lives of millions of people living in the countryside. But there is room to make the process more equitable, transparent and democratic with greater participation of people in articulating what they want, rather than simply assenting to what the state thinks they want.
[1] Ghose, Debobrat, 2019, ‘Why Chhattisgarh’s tribals rejected the BJP,’ Firstpost, Vol 1, No 12, Feb 9 - 15, p 6.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author, and don’t necessarily reflect the position of CBGA. You can reach Anurag Mazumdar at anurag@cbgaindia.org.