tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post116516976398590736..comments2024-03-27T17:16:12.789+05:30Comments on The Leap Blog: Trickle down economicsAjay Shahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03835842741008200034noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-51201449144907246982008-01-10T03:12:00.000+05:302008-01-10T03:12:00.000+05:30First about the IMR - I am wondering if the data p...First about the IMR - I am wondering if the data provide any information on female infanticides/foeticides. Punjab, especially has come under heavy criticism recently for its skewed m/f ratio. 2-2.5 children sounds great (probably) but at what cost? I would like to know how many female foetuses are killed to achieve this great number. This relates to your emphatic assertion about the education of the masses. While I completely agree (for I would be a fool to deny) that our governments fare pathetically in their functions, I am yet to see any convincing result that tells me that private enterprises are sufficiently better. It is not enough to base our judgments on what is observed. Yes, women might choose a private over a public institution and then we can also show how 'satisfied' they are with the services. But when probed deeper, things might look entirely different. The prevailing perception of 'private-necessarily means-better ' (thanks to the rapid advent and advocacy of the institutions, similar in the lines of the Cato and the Heritage Foundation in this 'poor, developing' country of ours :-) - may be one of the many 'irrational' factors of people turning to such services. Sporadic reports are now aplenty providing information of the clandestine operations of these private entities, many of which are also involved in female infanticides/foeticides. <BR/><BR/>"When people get richer, they buy better food, better sanitation and cleanliness, more knowledge (e.g. education within the family), and services of private doctors / hospitals." - <BR/><BR/>I agree that when the purchasing power increases, people's options also increase. BUT, people do not necessarily buy and eat better food. That is a false assumption. My earning capacity makes it possible for me to buy a pizza from 'Pizza Hut' in Delhi (though I would detest going to a PH outlet in the US - and here are the socio-cultural and economic aspects), but does my purchase of a pizza make my consumption pattern better than a person who can afford to buy 'only' lentil, onion, tomato and some milk? While the consumerist patterns cannot and SHOULD NOT be dictated, the assumptions behind the advocacy for private enterprises seem quite off the mark. <BR/><BR/>Also as a researcher, I expect a much more nuanced stance and attitude towards the governmental sector from a person who also has a doctoral degree. Things are not so black and white. The language makes a difference and I sometimes wonder whether the only purpose here is to promote the profit-oriented enterprise and nothing else or the purpose is to pool together people from different streams of thought to do something about issues. If it is the former - then this lambasting, derogatory, black-and-white tone and picture is fine. But if it is the latter then may be, pointing out the limits of both the governmental and the private sectors seem crucially important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-74462319389260618492007-02-13T02:15:00.000+05:302007-02-13T02:15:00.000+05:30Ajay,It’s really very pleasing to see the improvem...Ajay,<BR/><BR/>It’s really very pleasing to see the improvement in health indicators in the third round of the NFHS. It’s even more gratifying to be able to attribute the improvement to the high levels of economic growth in India. However, having said that I would also like to point out the lesson that’s stored in this correlation for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. That is, the urgent need for the MOHFW to strengthen its public health programs. The trickle down effect of India’s growth is certainly making it more possible for families to get better health care but, having said that, I would also like to direct our attention towards the millions of people whose health still depends on the effective functioning of the government’s public health system. I work for an organization that has just finished conducting a detailed analysis of maternal and childcare issues in the ten of the least developed districts of India. The data just started rolling in and it only substantiates my point about the pressing need for a better public health system. This is because, we found that while there are now a number of people that have the facilities to get better health services, there are many others that are either not as well informed, or lack the resources to get them. This results in many people turning up at the local government health centers and unless those centers become our first and most effective line of defense, we will not be able to achieve significant improvements in the health sector. Additionally, we will need time to achieve the high levels of economic growth that can usher in a sea change in the health of our population, given our current issues with infrastructure and such. Like you mentioned in your article, people will first have to become rich, and then hopefully, they can get better medical attention. This can take a substantial amount of time to happen. However, the government currently has the resources to bring about a large-scale change in health indicators. Thus, it’s important that the Government of India understands the urgency of the issue and makes appropriate amendments to its current public health practices. Your example of the European countries and the improvement in the health of their populations spurred by the high levels of growth in those nations is certainly useful in furthering the cause of greater economic growth in India, but we must realize that their governments have also put in place a strong and more effective public health system.<BR/><BR/>In sum, we should and must appreciate the impact that economic growth is having on the health of our population, but that does not mean that the government can shy away from its responsibility of building a robust public health system.Suchihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04242610144190183900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-1165365409806638522006-12-06T06:06:00.000+05:302006-12-06T06:06:00.000+05:30One would hope after looking at this study, UPA wo...One would hope after looking at this study, UPA would come to its sense. Instead of throwing good money after bad (like thousands of crores on the corrupt employment schemes) and spending time and resource on finding new ways for government intervention into people's lives would do more to reform the economy and to create unskilled and skilled jobs.<BR/><BR/>Somehow I doubt that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-1165341526656203832006-12-05T23:28:00.000+05:302006-12-05T23:28:00.000+05:30Excellent post Ajay. It's rising per capita wealth...Excellent post Ajay. It's rising per capita wealth that drives improvements in a wide range of human conditions. And because the free exchange of goods and services provides the best environment for economic growth, it's logical that this would also be the case for health related matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-1165322549797092112006-12-05T18:12:00.000+05:302006-12-05T18:12:00.000+05:30No, I think infant mortality is a great way to mea...No, I think infant mortality is a great way to measure the genuine quality of life of poor people.<BR/><BR/>Think about it: the upper class does not have children dying at a young age, barring levels found in OECD countries. Whatever deaths you are seeing beyond 15 per 1000 are deaths amongst poor people.<BR/><BR/>As a thumb-rule, any infant mortality rate above 65 per 1000 is really unacceptable - the most basic access to food, cleanliness and health services gives numbers better than 65. What we have seen in India is clearly a case where the observed infant mortality is a consequence of poverty & deprivation. Ergo, any improvements in infant mortality that are taking place are caused by improvements in food, cleanliness and health services accessed by poor people.<BR/><BR/>The non-obvious step here is to notice that GDP growth can (possibly) do 4 things. It can yield better nutrition for poor people; it can yield better cleanliness for poor people; it can empower poor people to buy better health services; it can involve better production of health services in the public sector.<BR/><BR/>In India, we know the last one did not happen. But we know that health & fertility got better. Therefore the first three elements were at work: poor people got richer and were buying more vegetables, soap and private medical services. Better GDP to better health can take place with no help whatsoever on the part of the public health system. Conversely, if you freeze the nominal spending of the Ministry of Health, these improvements will continue to obtain.Ajay Shahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03835842741008200034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-1165312828325885192006-12-05T15:30:00.000+05:302006-12-05T15:30:00.000+05:30Sir,I'm sure there is a lot of improvement in the ...Sir,<BR/>I'm sure there is a lot of improvement in the health and fertility but to the bigger question of whether the economic growth is reaching poor people in the right proportion.I'm not sure..I guess if there is a way to compare urban and rural progress in this aspect,it would be helpful.Don't think you think teh government plays an important role in relaying this growth to the poor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-1165275754419060282006-12-05T05:12:00.000+05:302006-12-05T05:12:00.000+05:30When you think of issues like infant mortality or ...When you think of issues like infant mortality or fertility, the overall average makes a lot of sense. Rich people anyway never have high infant mortality. So the overall infant mortality for the population ends up reflecting (a) the poverty rate and (b) infant mortality amongst the poor. Similar issues influence fertility.<BR/><BR/>NFHS-3 is very recent. This EPW article is the first time any data has come out. As my post suggests, even the broad aggregated data is rich with counter-intuitive results, and improves our knowledge considerably.Ajay Shahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03835842741008200034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-1165243582547273802006-12-04T20:16:00.000+05:302006-12-04T20:16:00.000+05:30NFHS is about all households. It's a random sample...NFHS is about all households. It's a random sample of what India's households look like.Ajay Shahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03835842741008200034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19649274.post-1165213133125309652006-12-04T11:48:00.000+05:302006-12-04T11:48:00.000+05:30NFHS3 survey, is it just about poor persons or all...NFHS3 survey, is it just about poor persons or all households? If it is about all households, perhaps your conclusions about its implicaitons for the poor households need to be checked?Sunil Deepakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05781674474022699458noreply@blogger.com