CAPABILITIES, REFORM AND THE

KERALA ‘MODEL’

M.A.Oommen
Malcolm.S.Adiseshiah Chair Professor
Institute of Social Sciences
Thiruvananthapuram

Paper scheduled for presentation at the Annual Conference of Human

Development and Capability Association, New Delhi
10-13 SEPTEMBER 2008
 ∗
CAPABILITIES, REFORM AND THE KERALA ‘MODEL’

M.A.Oommen

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate Kerala’s development

experience widely characterized as a ‘Model’ in the context of the
neoliberal economic reforms implemented in India since mid-1991. This
evaluation is done using the capability and freedom perspective
developed by Amartya Sen1. As regards the impact of reform, there is a
strong view that “Kerala’s social democratic gains have been preserved
and the social costs of its transition to a more open and competitive
economy have been effectively managed” (Sandbrook etal (2007): 68].
This paper argues differently. The paper is organized under three parts.
In Part I, I try to explain why I chose the capability perspective of Sen and
what it broadly means. Part II, tries to capture the essential features of
what has come to be characterized as the ‘Kerala Model’ from the
freedom/capability perspective. In Part III I try to examine the emerging
‘virtuous cycle of growth’ from the broad perspective of development as
freedom with the help of selected parameters. A concluding section sums
up the major observations.

PART I

1.0 The Conceptual Frame

I have two important reasons for choosing the capability approach.
One, looking back one can discern capabilities and freedom as the
underlying theme of Kerala’s development experience which came to be
characterized as the ‘Kerala Model’. Two, Sen has been one of the most
outstanding evaluators of Kerala’s development experience [See Dreze
and Sen (1989, 1995, 1996, 2002) among others].

The focus in this presentation is on Sen’s ideas underlying three

concepts viz. functionings, capabilities and freedom which are essentially
interrelated2. They are helpful concepts to evaluate quality of life.
Functionings refers to the life a person leads or achieves as a combination
of various doings and beings. These may range from the elementary
functionings such as to be healthy to more complex ones like the ability to
participate in the life of one’s community, the ability to keep self respect
and so on. Quint-essentially the well-being of a person is best seen as an
index of the person’s functionings (Sen (1987) 1999): 17). The term


This Paper is part of a larger Project on Kerala and Cuba sponsored by the SSHRC
(Canada)
1
In particular I may mention Sen (1987, 1992, 1999)
2
For an insightful account of the interrelations and implications, see Sabina Alkire (2003).
capabilities refers to the real ability of a person to achieve those
functionings considered as important to lead the life that he/she has
reason to cherish and value. Capability is essentially the freedom to
choose the life that one values. The two concepts are there fore closely
intertwined.

Expansion of capabilities of persons (this depends greatly on public

policy and social arrangements) thus becomes crucial. It is here that the
idea of development as a process of expanding real freedoms assumes
significance3. Freedom becomes important both as an intrinsic value and
as an instrumental value that enhances capabilities4. Capabilities that
enhance valuable functionings can be expanded by public policy. Sen
recognises that public policy can be influenced by the effective use of
participatory capabilities by the citizens. Expanding capabilities and
removing unfreedoms thus becomes the crucial means as well as the ends
of development. The sources of unfreedom include not only poverty,
illness, tyranny, lack of transparency guarantees and the like, but even
neglect of public facilities, poor epidemiological arrangements, continuing
social deprivations and the like. As Sen observes: “The success of a
society is to be evaluated primarily by the substantive freedoms that the
members of that society enjoy” (Sen (1999): 18). Contrary to the
conventional wisdom of development economics and the ongoing concern
of most policy makers, gross national product (GNP) is not an end in itself,
but a means to secure people’s freedom by enhancing their capabilities
and widening their choices. Lack of income becomes a problem only
because of the capability deprivation it causes.

Expanding choices is seen as a socially responsible act and it should

be done without endangering the choices of future generations. Surely
sustainable environment is to be promoted as a value. In brief, essential
choices valued by people are created by expanding human capabilities
and freedom. Human agency is crucial in the concept of development
because human beings are not to be conceived as mere beneficiaries of
“Some cunning development programmes” (Sen (1999): 53). They are
vital agents as well.

PART II

3
One important criticism of Sen’s capability perspective is that the process aspect is not
adequately elaborated [See Omkarnath (2007)]. Sen is well aware of the process aspect.
He is more concerned with the evaluative aspect of the approach of development as
freedom. Using the capability approach in a historical context may probably help to
clarify the process aspect. [See section 2.0]
4
Sen elaborates five types of instrumental freedoms viz. political freedom, economic
facilities, social opportunities (arrangements that society makes for education, health
etc., which enable people to live better), transparency guarantees and protective
securities. [See Sen (1999)].
2.0 The Essence of Kerala Model: A Freedom Perspective
In this section I try to capture the essence of the ‘Kerala Model’ from
the capability/freedom perspective. That a small linguistic region in India
(with only 1.18% of its area) holding a population size as big as Canada (at
the same time with less than 1/25 of its per capita income) could achieve
somewhat comparable levels of life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy
rate and so on along with social justice in a society which once suffered
the worst forms of caste class oppression is a rare experience in human
history. Definitely not the result of any exante model or pre-designed
growth strategy5, the Kerala Model signifies a trajectory of experience
historically evolved by ‘public action’. Following Dreze and Sen public
action6 is understood in this paper to mean not only state initiatives but
also social actions taken by the members of the public-both collaborative
and adversarial [See Dreze and Sen, (1989)]. From a freedom perspective
the ‘Model’ may be said to epitomize the social actions7 of a community to
fight successfully the caste, class unfreedoms and capability deprivations
they suffered for centuries. The abolition of agrarian slavery, the inhuman
practice of unseeability, unapproachability and untouchability, the
successful fighting for the right to worship the god you value, the right to
wear the clothes of your choice (women were even prohited to cover their
breasts), the right to use metal wares in your house, to tile and put a gate
to it, the freedom to choose your mate or partner 8, and the walk on roads
exclusively meant for the upper castes9, and so on were indeed great
efforts towards improving the functionings of citizens and the expansion of
their capabilities.

The land reforms of Kerala despite the many criticisms against them
are the most progressive and equitable reform that radically altered the
structure of production relations in one of “the most oppressive and rack-
rented region on the face of the earth”10. Here it is not wide of the mark
to examine a related question raised recently by Pulapre Balakrishnan: “As
5
The view of a foreign scholar that “unlike most developing economies, Kerala’s policy
makers followed a ‘basic needs first strategy” [Justino (2006):1255-56].
6
I am aware of the limitations of using a generic concept like this, but use it for its
heuristic value [See K.P.Rammohan (2008)].
7
In 1903 Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam was started for the upliftment
of the Ezhava Community and in 1907, Ayyankali (belonging to the Pulaya caste, the
lowest in the caste hierarchy) formed the Sadhu Jana Paripalana Sanghom and they were
in reality the strident voices of the oppressed of the times. In 1906, Vakkom Abdul
Khadder Moulavi established the Islam Dharma Paripalana Yogam for the upliftment of
the Muslims. Almost during this time all the major low castes like Kuravas, Thandars,
Parayas, Arayas and Kammalas formed their own associations. These are social actions
for their progress collective.
8
Kumaran Asan, the poet laureate of Kerala angrily asks in one of his poems: ‘Is the body
of Chandala girl barren to the sperm of a Brahmin’?
9
When Ayyankali in 1893 drove a cart drawn by two white Oxen with ringing bells around
their necks through the streets exclusively meant for the upper castes he signalled the
trumpet of freedom to ring out the old. [See Chentharassery (1985): 10].
land reforms are considered the one outstanding achievement of the so-called Kerala Model, the obvious
question to ask is why this has not solved the food problem once and for all” [Balakrishnan (2008): 15]. I think
this question is wrongly posed for a variety of reasons. For one, land reforms are not ‘the one outstanding
achievement’ of the Kerala Model although it is an important plank of its egalitarian capabilities. Two, land
reforms of Kerala is the outcome of a long drawn out struggle for land rights and freedom from the days of the
Travancore Royal Proclamation of 1867 (hailed as ‘the magna carta of the Travancore Ryots’11) through the
Land Reform (Amendment) Act, 1970. The emphasis never had been to augment food grains output but to
secure freedom and valued functionings. A truly ‘land to the tiller’ project of redistributing land to the former
agrestic slaves probably would have contributed to food production. Then the quality and texture of the Kerala
Model also would have been eminently better. Even so, it is difficult to imagine that Kerala would have
emerged as a food secure state. As far back as 16th century there was mention about the strategic ‘rice roads’
that brought food to Kerala from outside the State. [See Sanjay Subramanyam (2004)]. Third, the real
outstanding achievement of Kerala Model is in the field of education and health that acted as the foundational
capabilities of Kerala’s human development achievements.

The social reform movements that triggered a public action process in the State owe a great deal to
Kerala’s educational attainments especially female literacy with virtually very little gender gap. The significant
demographic transition, better schooling of children, low infant mortality rate and such achievements in
capabilities and freedom owe much to women’s agency. The matriliny of Kerala although not a universal
practice surely might have helped to reduce gender gap and in facilitating the agency of women. For the
socially and economically deprived, the only important means to substantive freedom have been via education.

The Christian Missionaries who promoted Malayalam language and education of lower castes (making
knowledge accessible to the poor as against Sanskrit a close preserve of the elites and men folk from ancient
times) also linked their activities with the development of health facilities and expanding their access to the
poor. The Royal Rescript of 1817 by the Queen of Travancore (in all probability written by the British Resident
10
This opinion of a British Revenue Officer is given in Varghese (1970). In this respect see also Daniel Thorner (1956: 35, and
Oommen (1971) among others].
11
See Velu Pillai(1940), Vol III: 191
James Munro) which enjoined that “the state should defray the entire cost of the education of its people……….”
was way ahead of the times and laid the foundations of the cent per cent literate state that Kerala has become
today. The buoyant export trade economy (coir, plantation crops etc) of the 19 th century provided the needed
revenue support to the rulers who could launch their strategic initiatives fairly comforably. By 1899-1900, the
expenditure on education of Travancore government was as high as 5.3 per cent and that on health a little over
4 per cent [Kabir (2003)]. The steady increase in the budgetary allocation for these sectors since then is fairly
well known.

Two policy choices made also need be mentioned before we close this discussion on the capability
perspective of the Kerala Model. One relates to the public distribution system with a vast outreach and near-
universal coverage that started in mid-1940s. Although the system has considerably weakened since the
economic reform, that at one point of time this helped to provide the food security and nutrition intake of the
poor needs to be stressed12. The other relates to the vast net work of social security entitlements covering
most vulnerable categories like agricultural labour, widows, aged, destitutes, physically handicapped,
washermen, tree climbers and so on. This is not brought in a day or at one stroke. It is the result of
competitive politics and organized public demand. These are mentioned to show that they exemplify
protective freedom and capability.

In sum, what we have tried to show in this Part was that the Kerala ‘model’ of the earlier vintage tells a
saga of fighting unfreedoms and trying to enhance the functionings and capabilities of a community long
subjected to traditional caste class oppression and inequities

PART III

3.0 The Post-reform Scenario: A Critique

12
As far back as the 1970s, in a well-argued and well-documented Paper P.S.George points out that subsidised public distribution
reduced the skewness in consumption levels among the different strata of consumers in Kerala and that the gains to the producers
and consumers exceeded the direct cost of government subsidy [See George P S(1979)].
 The scholarly euphoria that celebrated the Kerala Model since the publication of the UN/CDS (1975) study
which discovered the unconventional experience of this ‘low income state’ in reducing infant mortality,
achieving high literacy, without much gender gap and that too with social justice as the defining concern in
policy choices, within a decade or so yielded to despondency. Some characterized the ‘Model’ as ‘stagnant’,
while one saw it having reached ‘the end of its tether’ and another went to the extent of calling it
‘antigrowth’13. In 1990, a two volume special produced by Economic and Political Weekly (Nos.35, 36 and 37)
was titled ‘Kerala Economy at the cross roads’ was meant to address the question of poor economic
performance “against the background of its achievements in the social sphere”. The ‘crisis of the Kerala Model’
was the dominant theme of the International Congress on Kerala Studies, organised by the AKG Centre for
Research and Studies, Thiruvananthapuram in August 1994. In 1998 the Bulletin of concerned Asian Scholars
(Vol.30, Nos.1.3 and 4) devoted special issues to debate on Kerala’s ‘development debacle’. The common
refrain of most of the scholars who upheld the stagnation thesis was that Kerala failed to translate her human
development attainments into economic growth a phenomenon which has come to be referred in the literature
as “lopsided growth”. Belying all the negative prognostications the situation has changed and infact has been
reversed14. Some scholars have tried to show that this ‘lopsided growth’ syndrome has turned into a ‘virtuous
cycle of growth’ [For e.g. See Achin Chakraborty (2005), K.P.Kannan (2005)]15. In what follows I try to evaluate
Kerala’s human development attainments under four heads. They are (a) poverty and inequality (b) education,
health and social security (c) participatory democracy and (d) some unfreedom issues.

3.1 Poverty and inequality

Although the concern of this paper is about functionings and capabilities rather than the conventional
calorie-anchored income poverty it is helpful to use the historical trend of head count ratio (HCR) and Gini
coefficients based on the NSSO’s household consumer expenditure surveys. We also use the NSS 55 th round
(1999-2000) and 61st round (2004-05) household consumer expenditure relating to social groups and economic
13
See K.K George (1993), Isaac and Tharakan (1995) and Tharamangalam (1998) among others.
14
Ahluwalia (2000) is one of those who noted the better growth performance of Kerala following the economic reform in a comparative
study of Indian States.
15
Gustav Ranis et al (2000) analyse the two-way chain of causation from economic growth (EG) measured by per capita income to
human development (HD) and from human development to economic growth in 76 countries with the help of a regression model and
classify countries into four categories: vicious and virtuous cycles, lopsided EG (lopsided with EG, but weak HD) and lopsided HD
(lopsided with strong HD but weak EG). Obviously this type of aggregations and classification of countries into four pigeon-holes is
unrealistic.
categories to understand the change in the level of per capita consumer expenditure of the vulnerable groups
of Kerala. We supplement these with more evidence from a survey conducted by the Kerala Sastra Sahitya
Parishad (KSSP) for 2004-05 based on a much larger sample of 6000 households spread over all the 14 districts
of the state.

Table 1: All India and State wise Trend in estimates of Poverty (HCR) and Gini
Coefficient
Head Count Ratio Gini
1987- 1993- 2004- 1987- 1993-
States / Year
1983 88 94 05 1983 88 94 2004-05
R U R U R U R U R U R U R U R U
26. 41. 21. 41. 15. 38. 10. 27. 29. 33. 30. 36. 29. 32. 29. 37.
Andhra Pradesh 8 2 0 1 9 8 8 1 7 2 9 1 0 3 4 6
44. 25. 39. 11. 45. 21. 20. 26. 23. 31. 17. 29. 19. 32.
Assam 6 9 4 3 2 7.9 7 3.7 0 1 0 0 9 0 9 1
65. 40. 52. 34. 62. 26. 42. 20. 27. 30. 26. 32. 23. 32. 22. 35.
Jharkhand 5 5 8 6 3 5 9 7 2 9 6 1 4 5 7 5
64. 61. 54. 63. 56. 40. 42. 38. 25. 28. 25. 26. 22. 28. 20. 33.
Bihar 7 6 2 8 6 7 2 1 9 5 2 6 2 2 7 3
28. 41. 28. 38. 22. 28. 19. 14. 26. 28. 26. 27. 24. 29. 27. 31.
Gujarat 9 9 3 5 2 3 4 2 8 5 1 8 0 1 3 0
21. 26. 15. 18. 28. 16. 13. 15. 28. 34. 29. 28. 31. 28. 34. 36.
Harayana 9 4 3 4 3 5 6 6 5 8 2 7 4 4 0 5
Himachal 17. 11. 16. 30. 10. 35. 27. 29. 28. 46. 31. 32.
Pradesh 0 0 7 7.2 4 9.3 9 5.0 - 8 1 2 4 2 1 6
36. 43. 32. 49. 30. 39. 20. 33. 30. 34. 29. 34. 27. 31. 26. 36.
Karnataka 3 6 6 2 1 9 0 3 8 2 7 0 0 9 5 8
39 48 29 38 25 24 13 20 32 38 32 36 30 34 38 41.
Kerala .6 .0 .3 .7 .4 .3 .2 .6 .0 .9 .1 .9 .1 .3 .3 0
50. 50. 46. 36. 44. 44. 42. 40. 24. 32. 24. 32. 21. 30. 29. 44.
Chattishgarh 6 7 7 0 4 2 0 7 4 2 5 1 7 6 8 0
Madhya 49. 56. 40. 50. 39. 49. 35. 42. 31. 29. 30. 33. 30. 33. 26. 39.
Pradesh 0 1 1 0 2 0 8 3 5 8 6 3 0 6 8 7
Maharastra 45. 41. 40. 40. 37. 35. 30. 32. 29. 34. 31. 34. 30. 35. 31. 37.
 9 1 9 5 9 0 0 8 1 6 2 8 7 7 2 8
68. 54. 58. 42. 49. 40. 46. 43. 27. 29. 26. 31. 24. 30. 28. 35.
Orissa 5 0 7 6 8 6 9 7 0 0 9 0 6 7 5 4
14. 22. 12. 13. 11. 10. 10. 29. 33. 29. 28. 28. 28. 29. 40.
Punjab 3 9 8 7 7 9 0 5.0 2 9 7 8 1 1 5 3
35. 41. 33. 37. 26. 31. 19. 28. 34. 33. 31. 34. 26. 29. 25. 37.
Rajasthan 0 2 3 9 4 0 0 5 7 9 5 6 5 3 1 2
54. 51. 46. 40. 32. 39. 22. 24. 36. 35. 33. 35. 31. 34. 32. 36.
Tamil Nadu 8 9 3 2 9 9 7 1 7 1 0 8 2 8 2 1
25. 22. 13. 20. 24. 12. 14. 17. 29. 30. 28. 35. 24. 27. 28. 32.
Uttranchal 2 4 2 4 8 7 9 0 2 5 3 1 4 5 5 9
47. 52. 43. 46. 43. 36. 33. 30. 28. 31. 28. 33. 28. 32. 29. 36.
Uttar Pradesh 8 7 3 4 1 1 9 7 9 5 5 5 3 6 0 9
63. 33. 48. 33. 41. 22. 28. 15. 30. 33. 25. 34. 25. 33. 27. 38.
West Bengal 6 5 8 7 2 9 5 4 0 5 8 6 4 9 4 3
46 43 39 38 37 32 28 25 30 33 29 35 28 34 30 37.
All India .5 .6 .0 .7 .2 .6 .7 .9 .4 .9 .9 .0 .6 .4 .5 6
[Source: Based on Himanshu (2007) Tables 1 and 2]
R – Rural and U - Urban

Table 1 presents the all-India and state-wise trend in the estimates of income poverty (HCR) and Gini
coefficient estimated by Himanshu (2007) based on comparable NSS data (uniform reference periods) for 1983,
1987-88, 1993-94 and 2004-05 using the official poverty line methodology16. The Table shows that in rural
Kerala HCR in 1987-88, a clear pre-reform period is 10.3 percentage points lower than in 1983. But for the
11years spanning the post-reform period from 1993-94 to 2004-05 the reduction is only 12.2 percentage
points. The KSSP which uses the same official poverty line approach and with a larger sample arrives at an
HCR number of 22.9 for rural areas (2004-05) as against the lower official figure of 13.2 (which is much below
the urban ratio) and 20.8 for urban areas as against the official estimate of 20.6 which is surprisingly very close
to each other [KSSP figures from Aravindan (2006)]. The large sample size, wider coverage and closer
supervision and scrutiny by KSSP volunteers, make the KSSP numbers more reliable. There is no special reason
for a sharp fall in rural poverty while the fall in urban poverty ratio was only just 3.7 percentage points from
24.3 in 1993-94 to 20.6 in 2004-05. Thus the post-reform poverty reduction even by official poverty line
16
The author is well aware of the serious limitations and contradictions of the calorie-based measure of income poverty. (In particular
the recent papers by U.Patnaik (2007) and Mahendra Dev and Ravi (2008) may be mentioned).
estimates is not spectacular despite Kerala’s triumphant entry into the ‘virtuous growth’ regime. Not only that,
inequalities have widened in absolute and comparative terms (See Gini in Table 1). While there is a marginal
decline in the Gini coefficient for rural Kerala in 1993-94 compared to the earlier years, there is a quantum
jump to 38 per cent and is the highest number compared to all-India and all other states. The urban Gini
coefficient for Kerala (41%) is also equally disturbing. The apparent ‘comfort’ is that Kerala’s first position is
taken over by Chattishgarh.

Admittedly, agricultural labour and SC/ST categories belong to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged
groups. The matrixes presented in Tables 2 and 2(a) show the average monthly per capita consumer
expenditure (MPCE) of households by economic categories and by social groups in two periods 1999-2000 and
2004-05 based on the 55th and 61st NSS rounds for rural and urban Kerala respectively. We give in brackets the
relevant real values deflated by consumer price index relevant for each category in order to gauge the change
in real magnitudes. The Tables show very clearly that the consumer expenditure situation of Kerala of all
categories by household types or by social groups or by rural urban differentiation is way ahead of their all-
India counterparts. (This is but natural in a state that attracted on an average over 5 to 7 billion dollars per
annum since the Gulf oil boom in the mid 1970s buttressed by an accelerated inflow of foreign exchange since
the inauguration of the economic reform). The adverse changes in the conditions of the really poor among the
economic and social categories within the is disturbing, since Kerala has the highest per capita consumption
among the India States since 1993-94 and has been increasing over the years.

Although the average MPCE of agricultural labour in nominal terms increased by 21 per cent in 2004-05
compared to 1999-2000, in real terms the growth was only by 6.3 per cent. The worst affected are the
scheduled tribes among the agricultural labour households. Their average MPCE even in nominal terms
declined over 13 per cent and their real value as deflated by agricultural labour consumer price index by 23.86
per cent which is an abysmal fall for a group of households whose position was already vulnerable. The
agricultural labour belonging to ‘others’ improved their MPCE by 41.62 per cent and in real terms by 24.11 per
cent. Apparently they have other sources of income to sustain them on a higher level of consumption. The
position of SC category agricultural labour although improved in nominal terms, there was a fall in their MPCE
reckoned in real values.
Table 2: Average MPCE of different social groups and household economic category of
Kerala and all India in1999-2000, and 2004-05 (Rural)
1999-2000 2004-05
AgriSelf employed in Non

% increase over 99-00

% increase over 99-00

% increase over 99-00

% increase over 99-00

% increase over 99-00

% increase over 99-00
Self employed in Agri

Self employed in Agri

Self employed in Non
Soci
Other labour

labourOther
Agri Labour

Agri Labour
o/

Others

Others
Eco

Agri
nom

All

All
ic
Clas
s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
429.3 - 906.1 1033.
494. 674. 459.75 679.0 518.
ST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 13.1 1 43 -23.15
18 11 (402.1 - 4 - - - 05 (-
(376.2 2 (593.9 (792.5 (903.8 (453.1
2) (- 32.78)
9) 2) 3) 9) 1)
23.86)
646.3 13.8 720.9 16.5 654.7 1325. 753.
834.14 26.14
568. 618. 597. 9 0 3 5 7 93 11
SC 0.00 0.00 0.00 (729.5 - - - (10.33
01 58 03 (566.5 (- (630.5 (1.94 (572.7 (1159.7 (658.7
8) 6) 1) )
0) 0.27) ) 0) 3)
1128.0 44.5 720.4 24.9 780.5 25.2 1202. 30.6 1248. 47.4 995. 37.46
780. 576. 623. 920.9 846.2 724. 8 1 3 3 1 5 74 0 04 8 62
OBC (20.23
60 66 16 6 2 28 (986.6 (26.4 (631.3 (9.49 (682.6 (9.55 (1051.9 (14.2 (1091.6 (29.0 (870.8
7) 2) )
8) 0) 9) ) ) 8) 3) 0) 0)
1199.3 42.7 805.2 41.6 887.5 22.4 1420. 48.2 1432. 22.8 1191. 36.81
Othe 839. 568. 724. 958.1 1166. 870. 5 8 9 2 5 4 22 2 85 2 32 (19.66
rs 97 64 87 9 59 77 (1049.0 (24.8 (705.7 (24.1 (776.3 (7.09 (1242.2 (29.6 (1253.2 (7.4 (1041.9
0) 9) )
1) 9) 6) 1) ) 0) 4) 4) 3)
1134.2 690.7 792.8 20.9 1296. 40.1 1307. 28.6 1013.1
41.86 21.2 32.34
799. 569. 655. 925.4 1016. 765. 8 7 1 0 53 0 72 7 5
All (24.0 9 (886.1 (15.75
56 50 77 6 30 57 (992.1 8) (605.3 (693.4 (5.74 (1134.0 (22.5 (1143.8 (12.5
(6.30) 3) 5) )
0) 9) ) 1) 3) 0) 5)
All India
 495.2 17.8 358.4 404.8 443.9 658.3 16.6 429.
7.79 3.52 7.04 10.70
420. 332. 391. 414.7 564.5 387. 2 5 8 0 2 5 1 19
ST (- (- (- (-
21 58 02 2 6 69 (426.4 (1.48 (309.4 (348.5 (382.2 (566.9 (0.4 (369.5
6.97) 8)
10.85) 7.83) 8) 4.67)
4) ) 1) 6) 1) 2)
497.8 14.3 407.9 486.1 10.9 505.2 14.2 702.8 20.7 474.
7.82 13.43
435. 378. 438. 442.2 581.8 418. 5 3 1 1 6 0 4 2 9 72
SC (- (-
46 31 09 2 7 51 (428.7 (- (352.0 (418.5 (- (435.0 (- (605.2 (4.0 (408.7
6.93) 9) 9) 2.32)
0) 1.55) 8) 4.45) 3) 1.63) 1) 1)
591.1 19.4 428.4 545.7 568.1 16.4 760.4 28.6 556.
7.90 9.98
495. 397. 496. 488.0 591.2 473. 9 1 4 1 8 3 7 3 72 17.54
OBC (- (-
09 08 18 2 3 65 (509.0 (2.83 (369.8 (469.9 (489.2 (0.26 (654.8 (10.7 (479.4 (1.21)
6.87) 2)
5.29)
0)
8) ) 0) 7) ) 5) 6)
720.4 29.2 458.6 592.8 682.9 13.3 972.7 32.5 685.
9.36 6.96
Othe 557. 419. 554. 602.8 733.6 577. 1 9 0 8 9 0 9 9 31 18.73
(- (-
rs 19 35 31 1 8 22 (620.3 (11.3 (395.8 (510.5 (588.1 (- (837.6 (14.1 (590.1 (2.24)
5.61) 4)
7.90)
3)
5) 4) 3) 3) 2.44) 8) 8)
604.4 20.3 415.6 519.8 583.4 12.3 818.1 25.4 558.
502. 385. 482. 519.5 652.0 485. 7.69 7.68 15.00
All 1 3 5 1 8 1 9 8 78
28 98 74 3 5 88 (- (- (-
(520.4 (3.62 (358.7 (447.6 (502.4 (- (704.5 (8.0 (481.1
7.05) 1)
7.28)
7) 0.97)
6) ) 6) 4) 3.29) 5) 5)
Prepared from 55th and 61st NSSO Household Consumer Expenditure survey Reports.
Source: Figures in brackets are deflated values in 2004-05 compared to 1999-00. The deflation is done by average consumer price
index (1986-87 = 100) for the respective categories based on consumer price index series published by Labour Bureau, Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Government of India, Simla.

14
 Table 2 (a): Average MPCE of different social groups and economic category household
of Kerala and all India in1999-2000, and 2004-05 (Urban)
1999-2000 2004-05

00% increase over 99-

99-00% increase over
99-00% increase over

% increase from 99-

Other households
Regular wage /

increase over
All house holds

Regular wage /
Self employed
Self employed

Casual labour

Casual labour

All households
Other households
Socio / salaried

salaried
Econom

00
ic
Class

99-00
%
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1121.9 3.33 525.9
-11.86 1937.04 1515.74 90.24
ST 1085.8 596.7 796.7 3 (- 8
0 - - - (- (1547.5 - (1210.9 (51.9
1 7 5 (896.32 17.45 (420.2
) 29.59) 3) 4) 9)
) 1)
644.2
914.67 1267.58 766.19
SC 852.11 7
- - - - - - (730.74 - - (1012.6 - (612.12 -
(680.76) (514.7
) 9) )
2)
1376.5 779.5
1402.34 35.37 2.88 1187.79 42.37
OBC 868.2 1016.8 621.6 834.2 61.51 2 2 25.41 1161.82
1129.34 (1120.35 (8.15 (- (948.94 (13.7
5 7 0 7 (29.04) (1099.7 (622.7 (0.19) (928.19)
) ) 17.81) ) 5)
2) 7)
1830.5 1229.
1624.92 48.31 2088.60 48.28 1671.81 51.96
Others 1072. 1234.3 769.5 1100. 51.50 9 08 59.72
1408.58 (1298.17 (18.4 (1668.6 (18.4 (1335.6 (21.4
55 1 3 20 (21.04) (1462.4 (981.9 (27.60)
) 9) 1) 6) 3) 0)
8) 3)
1513.6 830.9
1455.92 34.09 1430.20 13.65 1290.89 38.44
All 1128.8 653.0 932.4 53.34 5 1 27.23
949.5 1258.46 (1163.15 (7.12 (1142.6 (- (1031.3 (10.6
7 6 8 (22.50) (1209.2 (663.8 (1.65)
) ) 1) 9.21) 1) 0)
7) 2)
All India
1034.8 500.6
37.13 7.99 78.17 857.46 40.85
ST 542.6 463.5 608.7 783.77 44.43 9 3 1157.19
754.69 649.49 (8.47 (- (40.9 (678.29 (11.4
8 8 9 (620.00) (14.25) (818.64 (396.0 (915.39)
) 14.57) 4) ) 2)
) 2)
SC 662.1 834.94 424.5 808.09 690.5 659.15 -0.45 932.27 11.66 530.9 25.07 972.87 20.39 758.38 9.83
 (- 4
(- (737.47 (- (599.91 (-
4 2 (521.42) 11.67 (420.0 (-1.06) (769.58)
21.25) ) ) 4.77) ) 13.12)
0)
1039.5 582.4
20.97 -4.24 37.55 870.93 18.52
OBC 674.9 608.2 734.8 796.60 18.02 8 2 1183.86
859.34 860.69 (- (- (8.81 (688.94 (-
7 3 2 (630.15) (-6.64) (822.35 (460.7 (936.49)
4.30) 24.25) ) ) 6.24)
) 2)
1431.8 658.8
30.04 1709.55 41.55 1306.10 29.99
Others 1101.0 548.6 1004. 1213.15 27.30 3 9 20.09
953 1207.74 (2.87 (1352.3 (11.9 (1033.1 (2.83
5 5 75 (959.66) (0.70) (1132.6 (521.2 (-5.00)
) 3) 7) 8) )
4) 1)
1212.6 579.6
23.55 7.21 1444.97 40.18 1052.36 23.13
All 812.9 540.6 854.7 982.35 20.84 6 3
981.49 1030.82 (- (- (1143.0 (10.8 (832.46 (-
6 6 0 (777.08) (-4.41) (959.27 (458.5
2.26) 15.19) 4) 9) ) 2.60)
) 1)
Source: See Table 2.
 It is important to examine whether the yawning gap between the ST
agricultural labour and that of all households and ‘others’ largely
comprising the forward community households enjoying the highest MPCE
has widened or narrowed over the five years understudy. In 1999-2000,
the absolute difference in monthly MPCE between ST, agricultural labour
households and those comprising ‘others’, with the highest MPCE was
Rs.673 and the gap between the two groups 2.36 times. Even with all
category households the gap works out to 1.5 times with an absolute
difference of Rs.272. The situation worsened when we examine the
scenario in 2004-05. The absolute difference between the ST agricultural
labour households and ‘others’ rises to Rs.1004 and gap 3.3 times. With
reference to ‘all’ household the difference works out to Rs.584 and the gap
widened to 2.36 times. This is a classic case of growing marginalization.
However this is not something beyond redemption. Table 2 shows that ST
households self-employed in agriculture has a MPCE of Rs.906 which is
better than the average for all ST households. The SC households
engaged in ‘other’ labour activities do have a higher level of MPCE. This is
also true when we turn to the urban sector in Table 2(a) where ST
households engaged in regular wage or salaried employment enjoy a
relatively higher level of per capita consumption in 2004-05. Even so when
we compare all social groups both in rural and urban sectors the only
group that suffered nominal and real income loss are the scheduled tribes
[See Table 2 and 2(a)]. The casual labour, SC/ST households in urban
areas also continue to languish. In the urban areas OBCs also have
suffered loss in real consumption. Another factor to be noted is the sharp
increase in the consumption levels between the poorest and richest
groups in 2004-05 compared with 1999-2000 in the urban sector. In 1999-
2000 the gap between ST casual labour households which have the lowest
MPCE (Rs.597) and ‘others’ with the highest MPCE levels (Rs.1409) is 2.36
times and the absolute difference was Rs.812. In 2004-05 the gap yawned
4.06 times with an absolute difference of Rs.1575. This has happened in a
short span of five years in the urban sector. The growing inequality in
consumption is alarming.

One plausible explanation about the deteriorating condition of the

agricultural labour households as a whole may be the poor performance of
the agricultural sector notably the fall in the value of commercial crops
and the failure of the public distribution system to provide cheap food
grains as in the past following the Economic Reform. While the agricultural
GSDP (Gross State Domestic Product) of Kerala grew at the rate of 4.4 per
cent during 1983-84 to 1993-94 (at 1980-81 prices), it fell at the rate of (-)
2.0 per cent during 1993-94 to 2003-04 (at 1993-94 prices). Kerala had
the worst agricultural performance among the Indian States, [See Table
1.8 in Government of India (2007): 24]. As regards the PDS which once
upon a time had a near universal coverage with a very high off-take of
wheat and rice significantly reduced their off take following the increase in
their prices which is not different from market prices and reduction in the
quality of grains supplied17.

3.2 Education, Health and Social Security: Emerging Trend

Admittedly, education and health and their wider accessibility have
been the twin pillars of the ‘Kerala Model’. Along with that, the social
safety net provisioning to most vulnerable sections of society have
strengthened the egalitarian capabilities of Kerala’s development. All the
evidence we have furnished [See Table 3(a) and 3 (b) Fig. 1 and Fig. 2]
show that neo-liberal regime has adversely impacted on the Kerala
‘model’. While education and health expenditure during the pre-reform
period (1980-81 through 1989-90) were decreasing respectively at the
rate of (-) 0.97 per cent and (-) 1.59, it declined sharply at the negative
rate of (-) 2.04 and (-) 2.46 respectively per annum during the period from
1990-91 to 2006-07. The other social services also show a declining
trend. It is significant that the percentage of public spending on education
to total government expenditure which was as high as 29.28 per cent in
1982-83 declined to 23.17 in 1992-93 and to 17.97 per cent in 2005-06
and only marginally increased to 18.59 in 2006-07. The well-known
educational expenditure norm of 6 per cent of NSDP which Kerala
generally enjoyed in the 60s and 70s declined to a little over 4 per cent
during the 1980s and below that in 12 out of 17 years of the post-reform
period. Much sharper has been the fall in the public expenditure on health
both as percentage of total expenditure and as a percentage of SDP which
turned negative during the post-reform era. [See Tables 3(a) and 3(b)].
Poor quality of education and health care has been the net outcome of
this. It is the poor that bear the burnt of this especially because their
social security entitlements also have declined in real terms.

17
As per the NSS 61st round, the consumption of rice from PDS in rural Kerala in 2004-05
was only 35 per cent as against 79 per cent in Tamil Nadu and 62 per cent in Andhra
Pradesh, states which provide the major share of rice to Kerala market [See NSSO (2007)
(a)].
 Table 3 (a)
Expenditure on Education, Health and other social services
as a percentage to total expenditure (1980-81 – 2006-07)
Social Services
Educatio Health &
other than Exp on
n family Growt
Growt Growt Education, Health
Year Expenditu welfare % h
h Rate h Rate & Family welfare%
re % to T. to Total Rate
to Total
Exp Expenditure
Expenditure
1980-81 27.01 10.37 11.34
1981-82 27.33 11.10 8.20
1982-83 29.28 10.94 7.23
1983-84 25.80 11.67 5.70
1984-85 26.73 10.54 9.02
-0.97 -1.59 -0.07
1985-86 25.23 8.50 9.70
1986-87 25.79 9.11 9.69
1987-88 26.38 9.58 8.19
1988-89 25.85 10.13 8.09
1989-90 25.15 9.94 8.79
1990-91 25.17 9.34 8.01
1991-92 23.87 8.60 7.00
1992-93 23.17 7.89 6.58
1993-94 24.60 8.20 6.38
1994-95 24.51 8.07 6.00
1995-96 22.46 8.13 6.65
1996-97 21.83 7.54 8.09
1997-98 19.61 7.30 8.31
1998-99 19.82 -2.04 7.34 -2.46 7.56 -0.17
1999-00 21.36 7.33 6.29
2000-01 21.04 6.86 6.20
2001-02 20.22 7.27 6.35
2002-03 19.20 6.47 7.46
2003-04 19.09 6.72 5.68
2004-05 18.23 6.63 8.58
2005-06 17.97 6.36 7.01
2006-07 18.59 5.24 6.54
 Table 3(b)
Expenditure on Education, Health and Social Security as a
proportion of NSDP (1980-81 – 2006-07)
Educatio Health Social Services
n, & family other than
Growt Growth Growt
Year Expenditu welfare Education,, Health
h Rate Rate h Rate
re % to % to & family welfare %
SDP SDP to SDP
1980-81 4.26 1.63 1.79
1981-82 4.50 1.83 1.35
1982-83 4.25 1.59 1.05
1983-84 4.22 1.91 0.93
1984-85 4.28 1.69 1.44
0.91 0.29 1.83
1985-86 4.74 1.60 1.82
1986-87 4.82 1.70 1.81
1987-88 4.59 1.67 1.42
1988-89 4.64 1.82 1.45
1989-90 4.45 1.76 1.55
1990-91 4.70 1.75 1.50
1991-92 4.08 1.47 1.20
1992-93 3.91 1.33 1.11
1993-94 4.35 1.45 1.13
1994-95 4.24 1.40 1.04
1995-96 3.70 1.34 1.10
1996-97 3.64 1.26 1.35
1997-98 3.56 1.32 1.51
1998-99 3.48 -1.94 1.29 -1.94 1.33 0.15
1999-00 4.17 1.43 1.23
2000-01 3.75 1.22 1.11
2001-02 3.41 1.23 1.07
2002-03 3.66 1.23 1.42
2003-04 3.44 1.21 1.02
2004-05 3.24 1.18 1.52
2005-06 3.10 1.10 1.21
2006-07 3.56 1.00 1.24
Fig 1

Expendit

35
Fig 2

30
Expen

6
25
 It is not only the reduced budgetary allocations for education and
health, but the accelerated commercialization of these sectors under the
Reform regime that materially weakened the Kerala model. The unaided18
private schools and colleges which were not a strong presence in the state
mushroomed under liberalization. In 1990-91, out of a total student
population of over 5.9 million, private unaided schools (which are
considered to offer better quality coaching and courses) accounted for
only 2.5 per cent of the student strength. By 2006-07, this proportion rose
to nearly 8 per cent while the student intake in government schools
declined from 39 per cent in 1990-91 to 30.5 per cent in 2006-0719. Only
those who can afford to pay high fees go to these unaided schools.
Another striking aspect to be noted here is that while Kerala succeeded in
reducing gender gap in education, inequalities in schooling between SC/ST
and other categories have continued to persist. This is well exemplified in
Kochar (2006) using NSS (55th round) data for 1999-00. Taking 10 year
age cohorts of the population, Kochar study analyses the proportion of
each cohort, from oldest to youngest that has completed 8 years of
schooling, distinguishing cohorts (SCs and ST, versus other castes), and
shows that persistent caste gap exists in schooling at this level, with
almost no reduction in this gap across age cohorts.

The KSSP study reported in Table 4 is more revealing. The KSSP

study divides households into four economic groups based on per capita
income, per capita consumption, type of house owned and consumer
durables possessed. The Table shows that the richest strata (Group IV)
send 55.5 per cent of their children to unaided schools. For the lowest
strata it is a negligible 3.4 per cent and in all probability by borrowings
may be to live like the Joneses. The poorest (Group I) and those
immediately above them (Group II) sent 97 and 90 per cent of their
children either to government or private aided-schools. The richest group
send hardly 14.2 per cent of their children to government schools.

Table 4
Distribution of Children by economic categories and by the
type of schools attending
Economic
Government Aided Unaided
Group
I 47.0 49.6 3.4
II 40.3 49.4 10.3
III 30.9 39.0 30.1
IV 14.2 30.2 55.5
[Source: K.PAravinden, ed (2006):75]

18
Government aided private educational institutions have the same fees, salary, pension
and syllabus compared with their government counter parts. But the unaided ones are
self-financing institutions.
19
These are based on data from the office of the Director of Public Instruction and
Economic Review for various years.
 During the last ten years, self-financing professional colleges have
mushroomed in Kerala. About 82 per cent of engineering seats and 45 per
cent of medical college seats are now in the self-financing sector. There is
considerable communal appeasements and probably corruption in this.
The present LDF government’s efforts to rationalize the fees structure and
admission rules to enable the vulnerable sections of society to get a fair
deal (what is justice if not fairness?) has met with serious opposition from
vested interests. Surely, the constitutional protection given to the
minority communities (Christians are the dominant interest groups in
education) should not be discriminatory to the more deprived and those
excluded due to the lack of purchasing power to buy professional
education. While commercialization of knowledge production itself is
questionable, the moot question is whether any group (minority or others
who enjoy constitutional protection) can trade education and health to
make profit on the strength of constitutional protection alone? Affordability
and accessibility which were the hall-mark of the Kerala model seem to be
jettisoned under the new dispensation.

All evidences suggest that liberalization has challenged the

foundations of the ‘Kerala Model’ of low cost health care. Not only that,
when public medical expenses are declining with very little allocations
available for buying equipments and drugs, the cost of medicines has
increased following the WTO agreement and the amendment to the Indian
Patent Act, 1970.

There is a tremendous growth in the availability of private hospitals,

nursing homes, scanning centres, diagnostic centres and the like. Nearly
65 per cent beds are in the private sector with those in the public sector
providing indifferent patient care and services due to lack of equipments
or adequate supply of drugs and medicines. With the private hospitals
and nursing homes offering attractive salaries, there is a pronounced flow
of expert doctors from government to the private sector. A rapidly
growing consumerist state, the disease pattern of the state is rapidly
changing. The primary health centres and sub-centres which historically
have been the key institutions for the delivery of primary health care are
not well utilized by the public. Even the low income categories use only
30-40 per cent of the government health care services and this includes
the primary health centres [See Nair V M, etal (2004); Kunhikannan and
Aravindan (2000)]. This is obviously due to the poor quality of health care
from the public sector institutions which is due to declining budgetary
allocation. It is the poor who suffer as a result of this. No wonder while
the poor spend over 40 per cent of their income on health care, it is as low
as 2.4 per cent for the rich [See Kunhikannan and Aravindan (2000)]. This
is obviously because of what has come to be widely referred to as
‘mediflation’ or increasing medical expenditure. The KSSP study (2006)
estimates the per capita medical expenditure at Rs. 1722 for 2004 as
against Rs.549 for 1996 and Rs.89 for 198720 [Aravindan, ed (2006): 106].
Several field studies testify that the impact of mediflation is most severe
for the lower socio-economic groups who have been pushed below the
poverty line and into deep indebtedness. [See for e.g. Kunhikannan and
Aravindan (2000); George M.K etal (2002); Aravindan, ed, (2006)]. Using
NSS 55th round data Asish George (2005) examines the incidence and
intensity of impoverishment in urban and rural Kerala due to out of pocket
expenses on health care and come to the conclusion that around 14 per
cent of individuals in rural and 11 per cent in urban Kerala incurred
expenditure on health care in excess of 15 per cent of their income and
that these ‘catastrophic expenses’ were concentrated mostly among the
poor. It has pushed 3.8 per cent individuals in rural and 4.5 per cent in
urban Kerala below the poverty line [Asish George, (2005)].

In brief, the new dispensation underway in Kerala has adverse

impact on the Kerala model which has been built on social justice. With
nearly 70 per cent of the poor taking to the private sector for health care
[Varadarajan D etal, (2004)] and the cost of medical expenses mounting
the poor borrow heavily for survival and run fast into indebtedness. The
Kerala ‘model’ has lost its historical architecture.

3.3 Participatory Democracy and the Concept of ‘New’

Kerala Model
A government’s commitment to decentralised democratic
governance is an indication of its concern for human development.
Kerala’s decentralized planning initiatives launched as part of the
implementation of the 73rd/74th constitutional amendments have attracted
the attention of scholars and policy makers world wide. The ‘big bang’
people’s plan campaign launched in August 1996 backed up by the
momentous decision to devolve 35-40 per cent of plan outlay (the actuals
turned out to be much below 30 in most of the years) was in the best
traditions of Kerla’s public action [See Isaac and Franke (2000)]. Besides
the capability demonstrated in mobilizing people and resources for
augmenting productive base and the great potential for improving the
quality of public services (e.g. Krishi Bhavan, public health centres,
primary schools, drinking water delivery, supervising public distribution
system etc), the most important contribution of the people’s plan is the
introduction of a new methodology for decentralized planning which
widens the avenues of people’s participation21. Participatory democracy
gives local people greater freedom to determine their development

20
This fabulous increase is obviously not due to inflation.
21
Broken into six phases from identification of felt needs at the gram sabha (the assembly
of voters at the village panchayat level) to the project formulation and final scrutiny by
voluntary expert committees the process of planning is sought to be made really
participatory.
priorities and improve the quality of public services. Indeed, participating
in social choice is a valued capability and freedom.

Richard Franke and Barbara Chasin found in this planning initiative

good potential and great hope and characterized it as a ‘New Kerala
Model’. To quote them: “At least on paper, it is an integrated programme
to foster a high degree of interaction between government and ordinary
people with a focus on the particular issues that make up the crisis of the
Kerala Model. As such, it also becomes a conscious, organized attempt
both to keep the Kerala Model alive and to throw up local shields of
resistance against the most harmful elements of the New World order”
[Franke and Chasin in Oommen, ed, (1999): 140].

Apparently taking the cue from Franke and Chasin (1999)22, Rene
Veron (2001) also has projected a “New” Kerala Model based on
“comprehensive” community-based, environmentally sensitive
programmes ‘that offer important lessons for sustainable development in
India and elsewhere’. Elaborating certain differences between the ‘old’
Kerala Model and the ‘new’ Kerala Model, Veron asserts that the ‘old’
model “preoccupied with redistributive strategies failed to induce
economic development [Veron (2001): 601]. While it is difficult to accept
any such classification of Kerala’s development experience especially
when they are based on hasty generalizations, it is important that he
underscores people’s participation as the defining characteristic of the
decentralization process. In the rest of this section, we may offer a few
comments on the experience of decentralized planning and participatory
democracy in Kerala during the last decade of decentralized governance.
We focus more on the positive aspects and the value of capabilities23.

One, the euphoria of the People’s Plan Campaign has died out. The
innumerable successful initiatives in different fields in several panchayats
have not become a central tendency. Although the quality of democratic
practice has not been totally lost, local democracy has yet to become a
sustained way of life. In most places gram sabha has degenerated into a
routine and weak institution. A gram sabha that becomes an assembly of
beneficiaries is a poor reflection of capability or freedom. Despite the
widely trumpeted stress on agricultural production, efforts to mobilize
people, expertise and resources to augment production have failed to get
off the ground. Transparency guarantees and initiatives to root out
corruption (for e.g. the Beneficiary Committee system legally yielded to
the contract system in road and building construction) have not
succeeded.

22
Franke and Chasin have published a modified version of the same paper in Govindan
Parayil, ed, (2000).
23
No documentary proof is provided although the author in his capacity as Chairperson of
a committee constituted by the government of Kerala to evaluate the experience of
decentralized planning in the state has a lot of empirical data with him.
 Two, Kerala’s capability to lead a healthy life is fairly well
documented. In section 3.2 we have documented strong evidences to
show that this capability is seriously under threat. Certainly an
empowered local government has the responsibility and the potential to
provide adequate preventive and curative health care to the local
community. In practice however public health performance leaves many
things to be desired. The utilization levels of public health centres (PHCs)
and sub-centres are deteriorating due to the lack of facilities. A well
documented study based on extensive field work by D.Varatharajan, etal
(2004) show how the tremendous potential of the health care system has
not been fully utilized. To quote their findings:
“Panchayats in Kerala allocated a lower proportion of resources than that
allocated by the state government prior to decentralization; while
panchayat resources grew at an annual rate of 30.7%, health resources
grew at 7.9%. PHCs were funded to the extent of 0.7-2.7% of the total
cost. An additional 2% in PHC resources was associated with improved
patient load (63.5%), cost effectiveness (50.8%), medicine supply (49.4%),
information (32.8%) and patient satisfaction (12.7%)…..Decentralisation
brought no significant change to the health sector. Active panchayat
support to PHCs existed in only a few places, but wherever it was present
the result was positive”. (D.Varatharajan etal (2004):p.41]. A quote from
a recent field study of 245 households affected by Chikungunya during the
spread of the epidemics covering 14 gram panchayats in the districts of
Pathanamthitta, Alappuzha and Kottayam districts is also revealing: “We
could not gather evidence to believe that any of these GPs have taken any
concerted efforts for health sanitation and vector control with a long term
perspective. This is an activity that can be effectively carried out only by
the GPs” {Itty (2007): 36]. Indeed decentralization has yet to become an
essential agenda of the public care system of the state. Even today 36
gram panchayats do not have public health centres. It is important to
build on the positive linkage of panchayats and public health care
systems.

Three, Kudumbashree which is a three–tiered community based self-

help group organization of women (which although technically an
organization of poor women is today a mixture of all) which functions as a
sub-system of local governments has “contributed to the expansion of
elementary capabilities, be it health care, gender equity, employment and
the like”. [Oommen (2008): 116]. For more details see the text]. If the
Kudumbashree were not overloaded with work and care is taken not to use
the project as a party-based organization, there is great hope for better
women’s agency in the state.

3.4 Some Emerging Unfreedoms

We have dealt with poverty, inequality, education, health and social
security from the freedom perspective. Growing economic inequality
bears the threat to compromise on the quality of democracy and
transparency guarantees especially in the back drop of the failure of
participatory capabilities to take root. In this section I raise certain
unfreedom issues under three broad heads: economic and moral hazards,
political deficits and social anomie.

3.4.1 Economic and moral Hazards

A highly consumerist state with a MPCE much higher than that of all
other states in India, Kerala encounters several adverse consequences.
The growing vehicle population, the production of mounting solid, liquor
and medical wastes, a pathological increase in liquour consumption, and
above all the creation of a parallel economy are some of the major
consequences of high consumerism. For example, the number of motor
vehicles which was around 6.47 lakhs in 1990-91 rose to 23.15 lakhs in
2001-02, a 3.6 times increase in just a decade which again increased 1.73
times to reach 40.25 lakhs in 2006-07 (Based on Economic Review various
years). No wonder the number of accidents in 1990 which was 20900 or
57 per day and the number killed 1717 or less than five per day increased
to 42295 in 2005 and number killed to 9 per day. Although the number of
accidents slightly declined, in 2006 and 2007, the number killed rose to
9.94 and 10.42 respectively. The number injured per day which was only
76 per day in 1990 rose to 140 in 2005 but fell to 131 per day in 2007.
[See Appendix A for more details]. These are alarming numbers and are
serious threats to the freedom to lead long and healthy lives. One of the
reasons for the return of malaria, chikungunya, dengue fever and other
vector-borne diseases are the poor management of the wastes being
generated everyday in this expanding consumer boom24. In 2007-08, the
Kerala State Beverages Corporation, the state monopoly of IMFL (Indian
Made Foreign Liquor) sold liquor to the tune of Rs.3669 crore or more than
Rs.10 crore per day and probably much more of hooch, toddy and liquour
brought from outside the state. According to the Secretary–General of
Kerala Catholic Bishops Council’s Commission on Temperance more than
10 million Keralites drink and 1.5 million of them are addicts. All these are
said not as an argument against drinking but against the unfreedoms
generated by accidents of drunken driving and the increase in nervous
diseases the habit has generated25. Probably the most hazardous
economic challenge confronting the state is the growing parallel
economy26 supported by powerful land mafia, liquor mafia, sand mafia
24
What part in the spread of infections diseases is due to the migrant labour from Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka, West Bengal, Orissa, Bhiar etc is not known. Attracted by the growing
construction industry (now expanding into road construction, agriculture etc) migrant
labour who flock to the state is estimated to be around 4.13 lakh (could be an under
estimate) [See Surabhi, Ajith Kumar (2007)].
25
According to Dr.C.J.John, a Kochi – based Psychiatrist: “Keralites could be the largest
users of anti-depression and anti-anxiety drugs in the country” as Reported in The Hindu,
April 2, 2008.
26
The Additional Director General of Police of the State estimates it to be of the order of
Rs.50,000 crore for 2006, over 55% of the SDP of the State. Reportedly the Cabinet in
(who supply river and lake sands to the growing construction industry the
largest employment provider) and of late the spiritual/godmen mafia and
so on. The crime, gangsterism and moral crisis that some of these create
are growing into a Franken stern.

3.4.2 The Political deficits

I do not propose to spell out in detail the political deficits that this
state of public action fame encounters today. For a state that has seen
around 60 political parties on the political chess board game in the past
half a century, 18 of them are now aligned on both sides. It is not certain
how, many of them grown out of partisan or personal interests can foster
larger democratic values and substantial freedom. The ‘old’ demand
politics are often in conflict with constructive ideas and projects. For Olle
Tornquist who has studied extensively Kerala politics the “most
challenging” task is “the lack of a strong public sphere for autonomous
debate and discussion among independent citizens. This is strange, given
all the speeches and papers about ‘public action’ in the ‘Kerala Model’ and
about the transparency and public space that would be generated by the
People’s Plan Campaign. Yet, media and other forums for public discourse
seem to be based on the primacy of the narrow interests rather than the
argument” [Tornquist (2007): 39]. In the context of the freedom
perspective that this paper highlights it is important to listen to another
observation he makes. “You can’t talk about everything publicly” is the
standing answer I get in Kerala’ [Tornquist (2007): 39]27. Any keen student
of Kerala society will be pained by the reality that collective choice and
respect for truth (the basis of a scientific and purposive society) is at a
colossal discount.

3.4.3 Social anomie

In this paper that seeks to evaluate contemporary Kerala from a
freedom perspective, it is not wide of the mark to mention certain anomie.
The low infant mortality rate and the great demographic transition that
Kerala achieved shows women’s agency at its best in any developing
country. Even so the growing atrocities against women [See Fig.3 and
Appendix B] such as rapes, cruelty by husbands, dowry deaths and so on
persist as a paradox. The reality that except in two years during the 1997-
2007 decade the incidence of suicides per lakh crossed 30 and for the rest
of the years stayed around that number and the occurrence of higher
incidence of suicide in the agricultural districts where indebtedness was
high are poignant enough to attract collective thinking and remedial
action. Again the extant ‘Watching Wages’ (Nokku Cooly) or paying wages
one of its meetings in June 2008 has taken note of this.
27
This situation comes under what Nussbaum calls combined capabilities. If one is able to
form one’s point of view and is not able to express it for fear of repercussion one has the
internal capability for freedom of speech but lacks the combined capability because of
the absence of external conditions to express them. [See Nussbaum (2000)].
as a right to those who watch the operation of loading irrespective of
whether they do the work or not and similar such practices are against all
canons of social ethics and violate freedom. The frequent Harthals (88 in
2007) limit the freedom of transport, transactions, economic facilities and
the like and result in much waste of time and resources. Harthals which
should be done only in the last resort are so frequent and that too
demanded by different parties without any serious thoughts given to their
tremendous freedom implications. These are mentioned because of their
continued and growing presence in the state and limit the substantive
freedoms of the people.

To conclude, this paper has attempted to use the capability

perspective to evaluate the post-reform development experience of
Kerala. For a state that fought unfreedoms and whose social attainments
came to be characterized as ‘Kerala Model’ such an approach is relevant.
Looking back one can see the ‘Kerala Model’ of the earlier vintage sought
to improve the functionings and enhance freedom is under threat. The
poor expansion of capabilities during the Reform period in terms of
poverty and inequality is disquieting. That the inequality in consumption
levels between the rich and poor has sharply increased during the short
span of five years (2000-05) both in the rural and urban Kerala tells a
dismal story. Education, health and social security entitlements, the bed-
rock of freedom and capabilities have also suffered. The tremendous
potential of participatory democracy to enlarge capabilities continues to
remain poorly explored. The growing ‘mediflation’ has driven the poor
into great indebtedness and poverty. Meaningful democracy needs
substantial public resources. The federal government that extols the virtue
of economic growth as an end in itself offers inadequate support.
Presumably the most disturbing story that is being unfolded pertains to
the threat of the parallel economy tending to exercise its octopus hold on
the capabilities and freedom of genuine citizens of this state. There is a
serious political deficit. It is important to recapture the autonomous space
of argument and ‘reasoned choice’ for a real Kerala ‘model’.

Fig-3
 Atr
10000

9000

8000

7000
 Appendix A
Road Accidents in Kerala
No. of No. of
No. of No. of No. off
No of Persons Persons
Year accidents Persons Persons
Accidents killed / injured /
/ day killed injured
Day Day
1980 7064 19.35 1186 3.25 9913 27.16
1985 10348 28.35 1560 4.27 14441 39.56
1990 20900 57.26 1717 4.70 27972 76.64
1997 34661 94.96 2698 7.39 49713 136.20
1998 32837 89.96 2534 6.94 46198 126.57
1999 33979 93.09 2600 7.12 47193 129.30
2000 37072 101.57 2789 7.64 49403 135.35
2001 38357 105.09 2707 7.42 49669 136.08
2002 38762 106.20 2873 7.87 49460 135.51
2003 39496 108.21 2934 8.04 48640 133.26
2004 41219 112.93 2154 5.90 51228 140.35
2005 42295 115.88 3161 8.66 51217 140.32
2006 41728 114.32 3627 9.94 49799 136.44
2007 39861 109.21 3802 10.42 47951 131.37
Source: Statistics for Planning 2001, National Crime Records Bureau
 Appendix B
Atrocities committed against women - Kerala (1991-2007)
19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 200
Offences/ Year
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Rape 211 227 211 197 266 389 588 589 423 552 562 499 394 480 478 601 512
116 156 177 164 169 194 212 194 226 233 254 262
569 523 468 679 810
Molestation 6 1 3 3 5 2 3 7 0 9 3 4
Kidnapping 99 86 85 120 110 149 160 130 123 89 97 91 102 142 129 202 177

Eve-teasing 5 1 5 3 14 40 70 96 50 69 81 102 68 133 175 222 262

Dowry death 13 12 8 9 21 25 25 21 31 25 27 17 33 31 21 25 27
Cruelty by
107 167 212 248 241 256 283 293 322 328 370 399
Husband or 237 290 380 551 787
9 5 5 8 8 1 6 0 2 3 8 9
relatives
Other offences 130 212 322 273 298 277 217 183 175 141 166 174
733 939 737 986 NA
against women 5 2 7 9 5 3 1 3 4 3 2 4
18 20 18 25 33 49 73 74 77 76 74 75 72 76 80 90 760
Total 67 78 94 45 13 70 06 73 43 21 41 01 28 81 87 45 1
Source: Statistics for Planning 2005, Figures for 2003, 2004 and 2005 to 2007 collected from the Crimes
Records Bureau
References

Ahluwalia, Montek.S (2000) ‘Economic performance of State in post reform

period, Economic Policy Reforms and the Indian Economy, May 6.
____________________ (2002) ‘State level performance under economic reforms in
India’ in Anne Krueger, ed, Economic Policy Reforms and the Indian
Economy, Oxford University Press.
Alkire, Sabina (2003), Valuing Freedoms, Sen’s capability approach and poverty
reduction, Oxford University Press.
Aravindan K P, ed (2006), Kerala Padanam, KSSP, Thiruvananthapuram.
Asish Thomas George (2005), ‘Good health at low cost: How good and How
low? Economic and Political Weekly, June 18.
Balakrishnan Pulapre (2008), ‘Imagining an economy of plenty for Kerala’,
Economic and Political Weekly, May 17
Chakraborty Achin (2005), ‘Kerala’s changing development narratives’,
Economic and Political Weekly, February 5.
Chentharasserry T.H.P (1985), Ayyankali (Malayalam) Prabhat Book House,
Thiruvananthapuram.
Dreze Jean and Amartya Sen (1989), Hunger and Public Action, Oxford
University Press
_____________ (1995), India: Economic Development and Social opportunity.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
_____________ ed (1996), Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
_____________ (2002), India: Development and Participation. Oxford University
Press, New Delhi.
George K K (1993), Limits to Kerala Model of Development: An analysis of Fiscal
crisis and its Implications, Centre for Development Studies,
Thiruvanananthapuram.
George M K, J Doni (2002), Residual Illiteracy in a Coastal Village: Poovar
Village of Thiruvananthapuram district DP No.45 KRPLLD,
Thiruvananthapuram
Geroge P S (1979), Public distribution of food grains in Kerala – Income
distribution implications and effectiveness, Research Paper 7 International
Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.
Himanshu (2007), ‘Recent Trends in Poverty and Inequality: Some Preliminary
results” Economic and Political Weekly, February 10.
Isaac Thomas T M and Richard Franke, Local Democracy and Development:
Peoples Campaign for Decentralised Planning in Kerala, Left Word, New
Delhi.
Itty M John (2007), Socio-economic Impact of Chikungunya in Kerala in 2007,
Vichara School of People’s Economics, Mavelikara.
Isaac Thomas T M and M Tharakan (1995), ‘Kerala towards a New Agenda’
Economic and Political Weekly, August 5-12.
Justino Patricia (2006), ‘The impact of collective action on economic
development: Empirical evidence from Kerala, India, World Development,
Vol. 34, No.7.
Kabir M (2003), Growth of service sector in Kerala: A Comparative Study of
Travancore and Malabar 1901-1951, Ph.d Thesis, Kerala University.
Kannan K P (2005), ‘Kerala’s turn around in growth: Role of social development,
Remittances and Reform’, Economic and Political Weekly, February 5.
Kochar Anjini (2006), ‘Improving the quality of elementary schooling in Kerala’
IN Sunil Mani etal ed, Kerala’s Economy Crouching Tiger, Scared Cows, DC
Books.
Kunhi Kannan T.P, K.P.Aravindan (2000), Changes in the Health Status of
Kerala, 1987-1997, KRPLLD, Centre for Development Studies,
Thiruvananthapuram.
Nair V M, K R Thankappan, R S Vasan, P S Sarma (2004), “Community
utilization of sub-centres in primary health care – An analysis of
determinant in Kerala’, The Indian Journal of Public Health, XXXXVIII. No.1,
January-March.
NSSO (2007), Household Consumer Expenditure among Socio Economic Groups
2004-05, Report No.514, Government of India, New Delhi.
____________ (2007a), Public Distribution System and other sources of household
Consumption, 61st round Report No.510, Vol.I, Government of India, New
Delhi.
Nussbanm Matha (2000), Women and Human Development: The capabilities
approach, Cambridge University Press.
Omkarnath G (2007), ‘The formation of capabilities’ Indian Journal of Human
Development Vol.I, No.2
Oommen MA (1976), ‘Rise and growth of Banking in Kerala’ Social Scientist,
November.
____________ (1971), Land Reform and Socio Economic Change in Kerala, CLS
Madras.
____________ (2007), Kudumbashree of Kerala: An Appraisal, Institute of Social
Sciences, New Delhi.
Parayil Govindan (2000), Kerala: The Development Experience, London, Zed
Books.
Patnaik Utsa (2007), ‘Neoliberalism and Rural Poverty in India’, Economic and
Political Weekly, July 28.
Rammohan KT (2008), “‘Public action’ Reconsidered: The Dalit and Brahmin in
the Kerala model of Development”, paper presented at the 20 th Conference
on Modern South Asian Studies, University of Manchester, UK.
Ranis Gustav, Frances Stewart and Alejandro Ramirez (2000), ‘Economic
Growth and Human Development, World Development, Vol.28, No.2.
Sen Amartya (1987 (1999), Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford India Paper
Back.
____________ (1992), Inequality Reexamined, Oxford University Press.
____________ (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press.
Subrahmanyam Sanjay (2004), The Political Economy of Commerce: South
India 1500-1650, Oxford University Press.
Surabhi KS, N. Ajith Kumar (2007), ‘Labour migration to Kerala: A study of
Tamil migrant labourers to Kochi’, CSES working paper series, 16. Centre
for socio economic and Environmental studies’ Kochi.
Tharakan Michael (1984), ‘Intra Regional differences in Agrarian systems and
internal migration. A case study of Farmers from Travancore to Malabar
1930-1950’. Working Paper No.194 Centre for Development Studies,
Thiruvananthapuram.
Tharamangalam Joseph (1998), ‘The perils of social development without
economic growth: The development Debacle of Kerala, India’, Bulletin of
concerned Asian Scholars, 30 (1).
Thorner Daniel (1956), Agrarian Prospects in India, Delhi School of Economics,
Delhi.
Tornquist Olle (2007), ‘The Politics of decentralisation’ in MA Oommen, ed,
(2007), A decade of Decentralisation in Kerala, Institute of Social Sciences
and Har-Anand Publications Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.
United Nations (1975), Poverty Unemployment and Development Policy: A Case
Study of selected Issues with reference to Kerala, Centre for Development
Studies, Thiruvananthapuram (Reprinted in 2000).
Varadarajan D, R Thankappan and Sabeena Jayapalan (2004), ‘Assessing
the performance of primary health centres under decentralized governance
in Kerala, India’ Health Policy and Planning, 19 (1).
Varghese TC (1970), Agrarian Change and Economic Consequences: Land
Tenners in Kerala, Allied Publishers, Bombay.
Velu Pillai T K (1940), Travancore State Manual, Vol.III, V.V Press,
Thiruvananthapuram.
Veron Rene (2001), The “New” Kerala Model: Lessons for sustainable
Development” World Development Vol.29 No.4