When India got its independence in 1947 as an outcome of partition there was large scale migration across the India-Pakistan borders. From West Pakistan, more than 300,000 refugees (this does not include thousands who moved to Delhi, Mumbai etc.) migrated to eastern Punjab leaving behind about2.7 million hectares and they were looking for land to settle down and farm. As against this, the total land left behind by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan was only 1.9 million hectares. The government had a huge challenge of allocating land to these refugee farmers equitably.
Sardar Tarlok Singh of Indian Civil Service, as the director general of rehabilitation in this region, managed this process with clear and simple guidelines which were enforced pretty well. To address the variation in productivity of land across regions, he defined a ‘standard acre’ which was the area that could yield specified quantity of rice. To address the lesser area available for allotment compared to what was left behind, he introduced a ‘graded cut’. As per this each party received only a specified fraction of the land area left behind by them. This hair cut, administered in a stepped fashion, was lowest for smaller land holding and highest for the highest slab.
The biggest challenge was verifying the authenticity of the claims. He addressed the same through open assemblies of refugees from the same village. False claims were punished by reducing allocation and even imprisonment which were strictly enforced. He was able to make allotment of 250,000 properties within 18 months from March 1948, when he started collecting claim applications. [1] (Compare this with the efficiency of administration of various development schemes run by the government these days even with availability of more people and better technology.)
Thus the most difficult problem of verification of claims was addressed through transparency. Peer verification, social audits and village assemblies were mechanisms used by generations. But as the society got larger, government procedures more complex and often opaque and exception handling ad-hoc, various government approvals, benefits and programs became inefficient and avenues for misappropriation.
Right to Information Act (RTI) is a good beginning. But the resources available for this are so limited that it will be practically impossible to scale up the transparency drive. The resources get clogged in meaningless queries, which often is the intention of those raising the queries. RTI is a good tool to dig deeper; but not a tool that can scale up easily.
To give momentum to the march towards more transparency, we need to have a system in place that continuously publish time series data to be published by various government departments on its expenditures, programs, exceptions, benefits, sanctions and approvals. At present most of the information dissemination by various government departments is nothing more than a public relation exercises. There are certain departments in certain states taking excellent initiatives. But often they remain as individual effort which dies down after the initiator has left or remain as islands of excellence.
What is needed is an institutional framework for publishing granular data in electronic form that can be queried and analyzed. The progress in Information Technology and better connectivity make this eminently possible and affordable. Various agencies can then access this data and make observations and conclusions. Some people may make simple queries for clarifications. Some pope will undertake extensive analysis of the data to identify trends or patterns or to measure efficacy of various schemes. Transparency Portal of Brazil is an excellent example for such an initiative.
This may be inconvenient for many and such people will always try to object and raise excuses. Some try to hide behind so called ‘privacy issues’. I agree privacy is important. But privacy is for private matters. When it comes to most government expenditure and government benefits, the public has the right to know how this has been spent and who the recipients are. Sometimes we hide behind strategic and security concerns. Certain information may have to be always confidential. But some can be released after time delay. We have to be very selective when we classify information on the basis of such consideration and it should not be a means to obfuscate. We should have mechanisms in place that would dispassionately evaluate the sensistivity to classify information as confidential.
This is a trend that we see around the world. An interesting example is how the data relating to government support during the recent financial market crisis in USA has been released. The central bank and industry lobbies resisted tooth and nails releasing this data. In December 2010, Dodd-Frank financial law forced the central bank to release the data relating to trillions of dollars of loans it extended to the various banks under trouble. However, it did not release the details of the loans under the discount window. Supreme Court has now rejected the objection by the banking industry and has forced central bank to release this data also[2].
It makes sense for the government to have a coordinated effort with help of experts to study the functioning of each department and develop an institutional framework and a time bound plan for defining the scope of data release. Let us publish time series data at the most granular level; details of individuals and entities who receive any kind of government patronage, input, aid or subsidies given against the quality and quantity of their output, details of companies found to have been engaged in corrupt practices, details of fund transferred to each department and how it has been spent as so on. Mário Vinícius Claussen Spinelli, Secretary of Corruption Prevention and Strategic Information, Brazilian Office of the Comptroller General has beautifully described the Three Laws of Open Government Data:
• If it can’t be spidered or indexed, it doesn’t exist
• If it isn’t available in open and machine readable format, it can’t engage
• If a legal framework doesn’t allow it to be repurposed, it doesn’t empower
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, "Let there be light!" And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better. ~Ellen DeGeneres
[1] India after Gandhi, Ramachandra Guha
[2] Fed To Disclose Discount Window Crisis-Lending Data Thursday
If you like this post, share it with your friends
Sardar Tarlok Singh of Indian Civil Service, as the director general of rehabilitation in this region, managed this process with clear and simple guidelines which were enforced pretty well. To address the variation in productivity of land across regions, he defined a ‘standard acre’ which was the area that could yield specified quantity of rice. To address the lesser area available for allotment compared to what was left behind, he introduced a ‘graded cut’. As per this each party received only a specified fraction of the land area left behind by them. This hair cut, administered in a stepped fashion, was lowest for smaller land holding and highest for the highest slab.
The biggest challenge was verifying the authenticity of the claims. He addressed the same through open assemblies of refugees from the same village. False claims were punished by reducing allocation and even imprisonment which were strictly enforced. He was able to make allotment of 250,000 properties within 18 months from March 1948, when he started collecting claim applications. [1] (Compare this with the efficiency of administration of various development schemes run by the government these days even with availability of more people and better technology.)
Thus the most difficult problem of verification of claims was addressed through transparency. Peer verification, social audits and village assemblies were mechanisms used by generations. But as the society got larger, government procedures more complex and often opaque and exception handling ad-hoc, various government approvals, benefits and programs became inefficient and avenues for misappropriation.
Right to Information Act (RTI) is a good beginning. But the resources available for this are so limited that it will be practically impossible to scale up the transparency drive. The resources get clogged in meaningless queries, which often is the intention of those raising the queries. RTI is a good tool to dig deeper; but not a tool that can scale up easily.
To give momentum to the march towards more transparency, we need to have a system in place that continuously publish time series data to be published by various government departments on its expenditures, programs, exceptions, benefits, sanctions and approvals. At present most of the information dissemination by various government departments is nothing more than a public relation exercises. There are certain departments in certain states taking excellent initiatives. But often they remain as individual effort which dies down after the initiator has left or remain as islands of excellence.
What is needed is an institutional framework for publishing granular data in electronic form that can be queried and analyzed. The progress in Information Technology and better connectivity make this eminently possible and affordable. Various agencies can then access this data and make observations and conclusions. Some people may make simple queries for clarifications. Some pope will undertake extensive analysis of the data to identify trends or patterns or to measure efficacy of various schemes. Transparency Portal of Brazil is an excellent example for such an initiative.
This may be inconvenient for many and such people will always try to object and raise excuses. Some try to hide behind so called ‘privacy issues’. I agree privacy is important. But privacy is for private matters. When it comes to most government expenditure and government benefits, the public has the right to know how this has been spent and who the recipients are. Sometimes we hide behind strategic and security concerns. Certain information may have to be always confidential. But some can be released after time delay. We have to be very selective when we classify information on the basis of such consideration and it should not be a means to obfuscate. We should have mechanisms in place that would dispassionately evaluate the sensistivity to classify information as confidential.
This is a trend that we see around the world. An interesting example is how the data relating to government support during the recent financial market crisis in USA has been released. The central bank and industry lobbies resisted tooth and nails releasing this data. In December 2010, Dodd-Frank financial law forced the central bank to release the data relating to trillions of dollars of loans it extended to the various banks under trouble. However, it did not release the details of the loans under the discount window. Supreme Court has now rejected the objection by the banking industry and has forced central bank to release this data also[2].
It makes sense for the government to have a coordinated effort with help of experts to study the functioning of each department and develop an institutional framework and a time bound plan for defining the scope of data release. Let us publish time series data at the most granular level; details of individuals and entities who receive any kind of government patronage, input, aid or subsidies given against the quality and quantity of their output, details of companies found to have been engaged in corrupt practices, details of fund transferred to each department and how it has been spent as so on. Mário Vinícius Claussen Spinelli, Secretary of Corruption Prevention and Strategic Information, Brazilian Office of the Comptroller General has beautifully described the Three Laws of Open Government Data:
• If it can’t be spidered or indexed, it doesn’t exist
• If it isn’t available in open and machine readable format, it can’t engage
• If a legal framework doesn’t allow it to be repurposed, it doesn’t empower
In the beginning there was nothing. God said, "Let there be light!" And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better. ~Ellen DeGeneres
[1] India after Gandhi, Ramachandra Guha
[2] Fed To Disclose Discount Window Crisis-Lending Data Thursday
If you like this post, share it with your friends
Good one ...
ReplyDeleteLet there be sound against injustice......gr8 post....if the intent is good than the outcome should be good too
ReplyDelete