Advocating Pro-competitive Reforms in India: Achievements & Challenges
Advocating pro-competitive reforms in India has led to policy and practice changes in sectors such as staple food and bus transport. Evidence-based policy advocacy highlights the successes and challenges faced, with a focus on key findings in the seed sector, procurement issues, and challenges in agriculture marketing. The approach of evidence-based advocacy and optimizing resources to achieve project outcomes is discussed, emphasizing the importance of state-level reforms and engagement with key stakeholders in Bihar.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Advocating Pro-competitive Reforms in India: Achievements & Challenges CREW Project CUTS India Team Rijit Sengupta, Neha Tomar & Shreya Kaushik 14thDecember 2015, Nairobi
Outline 1. Policy & practice changes in sectors [staple food (wheat) & bus transport] 2. Evidence based policy advocacy 3. Challenges in advocacy 4. Way forward 2
I. Policy & Practice Changes in Staple Food (Wheat market) 3
Key Findings: Reforms in Seed sector Greater attention to seed sector (National Seed Policy, 2002) State-level reforms flowing from national policy shift Private participation enabled through Agriculture Roadmap 2006 (Bihar) helped users (farmers) get good quality seeds easily at low cost Number of private seed firms increased since these reforms in Bihar 4
Key Findings: Procurement (PACS, Bihar) Present at every Panchayat level (8,300 plus in nos.) Institutional weaknesses of PACS, eroded its eminence: - Delayed payments (deflects small farmers to pvt. buyers) - Poor attention to quality - Not accountable to beneficiaries (Panchayat ?) PACS network and State support makes it a strong player, but needs reforms Farmers seldom paid in Minimum Support Price (Pvt. buyers) Farmers have high expectations from PACs; ONE STOP SHOP! 5
Key Finding: Issues in Agriculture Marketing (Agriculture Produce Market Committee, APMC) Continued government control Licensing rules acts as entry barrier Severe infrastructural bottlenecks in APMC markets High intermediation cost No national level integrated market (regulatory barriers) Lesser price realisation for farmers High wastage due to long supply chain 6
Evidence-based-Advocacy Optimising resources to achieve project outcomes deployment of efforts/resources to Bihar as opposed to Rajasthan Identification of state-level champions (govt. officials and policymakers) - high-level official in Deptt. of Agriculture & in Deptt. of Cooperatives, Bihar Providing inputs based on demand: (i) Reforming PACS (ii) Reforming Marketing policy Focusing on PACS and Agric. Marketing reforms in Bihar Identification of local researcher to undertake study and assist in outreach with State Govt. Outreach through the media (articles based on findings) 7
Challenges in Advocacy Physical meetings more effective than electronic communication Some delays due to elections (State elections in Bihar in Oct- Nov, 2015) Data availability and quality Change in state-level officials 8
Way forward Dialogues (State-level discussion) on: (i) PACS reform process (ii) Reforms in the agriculture marketing (iii) Impact of abolition of APMC Future project interest Good practices among PACS Research: Involvement of women in decision-making vis- -vis procurement through PACS (Bihar) 9
Key Findings Monopoly of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Stage carriage monopoly to GSRTC on inter-city routes (1994) Similar tendency in state policy: Kerala, Karnataka, TN, etc. High operational cost of GSRTC (about US$47mn in 2012-13), burden on the state exchequer Shrinking GSRTC fleet & high passenger demand led to entry of private operators (in stage carriage ) regulatory failure Led to rent-seeking behaviour Private operators deemed illegal (stage carriage) and penalised Service of public & private operators comparable, consumers indifferent 11
Evidence-based-Advocacy Engagement & Sensitisation of Deptt. of Transport, Gujarat (finding a champion) Uptake of the evidence: Adverse effect s of GSRTC monopoly Approach paper: Inter-city transport regulatory framework (knowledge partnership) Application of competition principles in Transport sector (competitive services on routes, competition in procurement) Political economy analysis to assess Winners Vs Losers Voice of the unheard: Incorporating views of private sector and facilitating their engagement with the Govt. (Deptt of Transport) Close engagement of Competition Commission of India (opportune: Guidelines for Review of State Legislations 2015) 12
Key Findings Abolishment of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Greater Openness) Liberalised sector after MPSRTC s abolishment in 2005 DoT s function more as administrative body than performing regulatory functions (limited to licensing and fare setting) Development of the rules of the game (allocation of powers to public authorities to regulate private operators) not done Fare determination through an opaque process, not inclusive Low accountability of private bus operators: non-availability on non-profitable routes, off peak hours 13
Evidence-based-Advocacy Interest at the highest administrative level (champion) In addition to reforming transport infra as per the draft MPITA CUTS suggestion for reform to include services and PPP projects (knowledge partnership) Timing was right: evidence used as input for refining structure of MP Intercity Transport Authority (initiated by State Govt since Feb, 2015) State-level process initiated for MPITA operationalisation (pushing for a stakeholder process) 14
Advocacy at National level - PROCUREMENT Goal: Infusing competition principles in public procurement of bus services in states (Gujarat and MP as cases) Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and Bhopal (MP) have one operator each in the BRTS segment Chartered Speed Carrier (Ahmedabad) and Capital Roadways (Bhopal) Eligibility criteria for bidding like in the case of BRTS, limits the number of worthy operators hence limiting competition (lack of an institutional guideline on competitive procurement process) 15
Advocacy at National level - PROCUREMENT CUTS Inputs Liasoning with CCI to facilitate discussions between CCI and relevant State Govt Departments/officials: (i) Possible institutional guideline on competitive procurement of bus services (ii) Guide the DoTs for facilitating competition among operators on selected routes (iii) Capacity building of the DoTs vis- -vis competition principles (Competition Act, 2002) 16
Challenges in Advocacy Attention of senior civil servants difficult Limited Time of senior policymakers need for continuous engagement and follow-up Internal capacity to own and implement reforms Political economy factors/constraints Activities go beyond pre-determined scope (needed to maintain credibility and create buy-in) 17
Way forward Continuous engagement necessary (maintaining the knowledge partnership ) Advocacy and policy influence to achieve planned reforms Initiating a stakeholder engagement process (planned reforms) Challenges in sustaining momentum (limited time and resources) 18
Anticipated Outcomes Movement towards institutional reforms of PACS in Bihar Contributing towards farmer oriented market reforms in Bihar State-level Transport Regulatory Framework in Gujarat and/or in Madhya Pradesh Capacity building by Competition Commission of India (CCI) of State Govts. 19
Thank You rsg@cuts.org, nt@cuts.org and shk@cuts.org 20
