Financial Express, August 7, 2013

The great rights debate

 India’s Food Security Bill has intensified a larger debate on where the country should be headed, with respect to questions of the rights of citizens. Naturally I want to weigh in as well. There are several issues, which to my mind are getting combined in ways that reduce the clarity of our thinking. 

First, there is the grand philosophical challenge of what rights are and which ones, at some abstract level, we want to protect and promote in our society. For example, the United States Declaration of Independence called out (though not exclusively) the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Second, there is the question of how to translate any abstract right into practical rules for society. In the US, the right to liberty was amplified and spelled out in their constitution’s “Bill of Rights,” to include freedom of speech. How that gets put into practice (for example, it is not a right to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre if there is no fire) depends on societal norms, laws, and the interpretation and enforcement of those laws.

Third, there is the issue of the motivations and objectives of those who are pushing for amplifications or extensions of rights in India, including influential people in and outside government.

Let’s not worry too much about the third issue, since the first two are central. Of course, if the current approach to rights is wrong, understanding why it went wrong will be important for changing the process and for selecting new decision makers who can do a better job. Looking at the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, one can see that we have, in principle, agreed to an expansive set of rights, of varying character and tenor (the right to life versus the right to marry, for example), some of which are derivative of others, and some of which may conflict at times with others. It is also clear that practice in India falls woefully short of many of the ideals laid out in this document.

So, with respect to the first issue, of what rights are, and which ones are desirable, as a first approximation, we have reasonable answers, the result of considerable global intellectual effort and historical experience. The real focus, then, should be on implementation. Of course, everyone falls short of ideals in practice, so the question is how we can do better. The economist’s way of thinking is very useful here—one should establish where we are relative to a “rights frontier,” how to move closer to the frontier, and where we should be on the frontier. The latter involves tradeoffs—should we spend more on subsidised food or on access to clean water? On public health centres in villages or on subsidised health insurance? On better and more equal treatment in the justice system or on maternal and neonatal health?

Of course, we would like to do all these things, but at some level choices have to be made, and one problem with India’s government decision making processes is that they do not support good spending choices in general. How to fix that was the subject of my last column. There is a second level problem once choices have been made. If we want to promote the right to health and well-being (as articulated in the UN Declaration) by focusing on food (rather than housing or medical care), then, is translating that objective into “the right to rice at two rupees a kilo, delivered through the Public Distribution System” the best way to do it? What is surprising is that this question has not been properly addressed by many policy makers and policy advisers. This is disheartening.

Of course, it can be counterproductive to criticise without offering a better alternative. So here is my suggestion, one I have made before. Focus above all on the health and well-being of two years in the life-cycle of every citizen, from conception to their first birthday. Put marginal public resources for the broad right to health and well-being entirely into this targeted group. This includes an integrated approach to food and nutrition, health care, and information and education. This will also have a big impact on gender issues and the rights of women, though in indirect and long-run ways. It is universal and easily targeted at the same time.

For complicated reasons, India does terribly on the interval (-1, +1) in its citizens’ lives. That alone would suggest that the bang for the buck would be highest here. Indian society has too many problems to fix all at once with the resources available. Getting this one piece of our lives right would be an excellent place to start. It will make a lot of other rights easier to attain over the longer run. Articulating citizens’ rights is a good thing. Using resources intelligently to achieve these rights effectively is also good, and ultimately where the proof of the pudding lies.