The widely feted Kerala Model of Development is one which exhibits high

levels of human development despite the lack of success in economic

growth. It goes against the conventional wisdom that human development
occurs only with concomitant economic development and has been held
out as an example for other low income states to follow (Kurien 1995:71,
Parayil 1996:942). The model has been a part of developmental discourse
for over three decades during which time the site of its inception, the
state of Kerala, has undergone tremendous socio-economic change that
now invites critical attention to new challenges and opportunities posed
by the successes and failures of this particular paradigm of development.

The Human Development Report, 2005, for Kerala is one such attempt by
the Center of Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram to understand
how the model faces up to the demands of the “second generation
problems of human development such as quality”(p.2) in the face of a
demographic transition and the forces of globalisation. The report
examines the development process in Kerala, closely scrutinising the
state’s performance along the various parameters of the Model and makes
a case for “charting a human development-based growth strategy for the
future” (p.3) by harnessing the economic growth the state has witnessed
in the last 15 years with a shift in the emphasis on quality in the delivery
of services.
The human development paradigm is understood as aimed at enabling
people to lead a full and productive life in accordance to their wishes and
needs through a process of enlarging their choices by building on
fundamental human capabilities like longevity, literacy, standard of living
and participation in community life (Sen 1997:105- 132) . The introductory
chapters examine the historical trajectory of the development process and
note its role in eliminating regional disparities across the state.

In assessing the historical head start Kerala enjoyed, the report points to
the role of proactive governments in the princely states in providing for a
system of landholding that permitted the commercialisation and
modernisation of agriculture that in turn provided them with the resources
to invest in social goods like education and health. The post colonial state
built on this inheritance through policies of land reform and an emphasis
on the education and health sectors. Kerala for much of its history
exhibited a pattern of ‘human development lopsided growth’ (p.15) that
raised questions on the sustainability of the state’s ability to maintain and
finance its social development programmes.

Spread across two chapters, the report assesses the performance of

Kerala along both income and non income parameters of development.
Along the latter set of indices, such as sex ratio, infant and maternal
mortality rates, longevity, mean age at marriage and immunisation
coverage, Kerala does well comparing favourably with international
standards. Unlike most states there exists little difference between regions
and between rural and urban areas along these parameters. Yet, the
distinction across social groups on these parameters remains significant.
Thus, the poor, the SC and ST communities and the fishing community
continue to lag behind on the indices of human development 1. The
problem of distributive justice, a concern central to the capabilities
approach, coupled with the persistence of such trends as malnutrition, low
birth weights and increasing morbidity and the emergence of lifestyle
diseases are other concerns that tarnish the state’s performance.

An interesting counterpoint to these problems is provided by Kumar, who

looks at the issue of continuing trends of morbidity and nutritional
deprivation through a prism of responses along behaviour, lifestyle,
diagnosis and better reportage and argues that “while the persistence of
high morbidity in a region that has seen spectacular successes in the field
of health policy may at first glance be deemed surprising and unfortunate,
on reflection it may well be just another facet of success in controlling the
great scourge of so many millions in India and elsewhere, namely
1
Kurien ( 1995 ) for instance looks at what he calls the ‘central tendency’ and the
‘outlier’ of the Kerala Model and argues that the common perception of it fails to locate
the outliers- groups like the fishing community that fail to find a separate mention in
discussions on the Model. His paper in examining the reasons for the plight of the outlier
fishing community identifies issues such as differential property ownership norms, the
socio-religious practices and the difference in social mores as responsible for the failure
to catch up with the mainstream.
premature mortality”(1993:120). The Report however also points to a
situation of increasing recurrence of infectious diseases in recent years in
the state and points to how they have disproportionately affected the poor
and the vulnerable sections of society.

The evaluation of the state’s performance along patterns of income

growth and income poverty examines the role of the State and State
sponsored social security nets in combating poverty. Pensions, benefits
and various targeted schemes, the report argues, have helped the poorer
sections deal better with loss of income and capabilities and have been a
key instrument in dealing with the linked duality of poverty and human
insecurity. While the social benefits of these programs have been
immense, the report notes, the fiscal cost of maintaining them have been
small as a percentage of the State’s expenditure.

In a state where under nutrition remains a serious concern, despite the

recent turn around in its economic fortunes, the role of the PDS is a crucial
one in ensuring accessibility and availability of cheap food for the
population. The report criticises the current policy of a Targeted PDS as
being deleterious to this situation. The role of the pro active State that
through policies such as the universal PDS and social security measures
has helped ameliorate the worst forms of inequality is posited as a
desirable and its expansion by means of greater resource mobilisation
through better tax compliance and elimination of subsidies for the non
poor is argued out as a solution for sustaining the gains of the model
(p.56). The turnaround in the economic performance of Kerala in the ‘90s
led by remittances from abroad and industrial revival at home coupled
with the explosive growth of the tertiary sector has meant the state no
longer remains a case of ‘human lopsided development’. Yet, the section
concludes, Kerala’s performance along the income indices of development
have remained below par as compared to its performance along the non
income indices.

Having deconstructed Kerala’s performance along income and non income

indices of development, the report further problematizes the
achievements by introducing the notion of deprivation – which is seen as
being beyond the narrow confines of money income. Employing an index
of deprivation that looks at qualitative deprivation in the areas of housing,
sanitation, potable water and electric lighting, the report further probes
the achievements mirrored in the HDI. The use of this index throws up
surprising horizontal inequalities- inequalities between communities-
where the SC and ST communities are seen as clearly having failed to
benefit commensurately along human and economic development, a
failure that the report sees as largely explained by the failure of the much
celebrated land reform and redistribution programs to adequately cater to
community specific needs (p.66).

The changing pattern of Kerala’s work force, a result of its demographic

transition comes under scrutiny in the following chapter. The decline in
dependent population, the rise in the aged dependent and of the labour
force as also a fall in the fertility rates and the stabilisation of population
are the results of the transformation, which in turn is a product of the
investments made in health and education. The failure to develop an
industrial sector and concomitant job opportunities have however resulted
in international migration in search of jobs, the remittances sent back
from where today accounts for 20% of the state’s income (p.78).

The state’s economic revival in the ‘90s was made possible by the influx
of remittances as it served to spur, simultaneously, both investments and
demand- the former in the form of greater volume of deposits with the
banks and the latter in the form of increasing demand for consumer
goods. Kerala’s failure to build up an efficient economic infrastructure is
not, contrary to popular perception, a result of governments having traded
one set of goods for another, but rather the result of inefficiency,
mismanagement and corruption rampant in the implementation of these
programs. The chapter concludes that “Defining development in its truest
sense in terms of a duality of availability (including accessibility) and
quality, we find that the ‘development’ Kerala has achieved, once
discounted for quality, boils down to mere apparent capability (a-
capability) enhancement, and thus to apparent development (a-
development) only.” (p.83)

The spotlight is then turned onto the educational scenario in Kerala, where
priority has always been given to primary education. Unlike in the South
East Asian nations, where a similar policy was followed, resulting in overall
improvement in the qualitative levels of education, the failure of Kerala’s
educational system to improve its qualitative benchmarks has meant that
universalised education has largely been bereft of any great quality. In
recent years this has meant an increasing substitution of government
schools by private schools which are seen as qualitatively better, putting
greater socio-economic pressures on parents from poorer economic
backgrounds. A similar situation has begun to emerge even in the health
sector, characterised by the mushrooming of niche super-speciality
hospitals and privately run medical colleges. Wide variations in the quality
of education run counter to the equalising tendency of education. The
failure of the education policy to establish institutes of excellence in the
field of higher education is also beginning to take a toll on the state
against the backdrop of rapid changes in the world labour markets and
increasing migration from the state. A related problem is that of educated
unemployment which has to it a strong gender dimension.
The report, in chapter seven, argues that unemployment in Kerala remains
open and starker among the youth, especially educated women, where
the combination of education with conservative social mores have proved
to be a major barrier resulting in one of the lowest women’s work
participation ratios in the country. Employment, at least among men, is
widely casualised, but the quality of employment is better than in the rest
of the country. The presence of the educated unemployed has, ironically,
only served to further the demand for more education. Higher and more
specialised forms of education are increasingly seen as the way out of the
problem of employability- an important factor in explaining the spurt in
the number of technical institutes opened in the private sector in the
state. In the absence of an emphasis on quality over quantity, the report
argues, the problem of employability and educated unemployment will
continue to remain. Further, the report concludes “an examination of
employment, unemployment, property rights and violence suggests that
patriarchy has been reconstituted through social reform and has endured
in and through social development in Kerala” (p.120).
The use of GDI to analyse the results of the HDI from the perspective of
gender throws up further surprises- with women becoming another
‘outlier’ in the model. While literacy rates and enrolment ratios remain
comparable, and women enjoy better life expectancy, their income
deprivation remains astonishingly stark. In most districts, women’s
incomes were anywhere between 66-80% less than men. This factor of
economic dependence on men coupled with changes like the phasing out
of matrilineal inheritance norms among certain communities have
contributed to what the report identifies as the reconstitution of
patriarchy.
According to Parayil, “The factors responsible for Kerala's achievements
can be attributed to: meaningful land reforms; 'food for all' schemes
through fair-price shops and feeding programmes for school children,
infants and mothers; providing easy access to primary and preventative
healthcare; promoting high literacy, particularly among women, through
free and universal primary and secondary education; high mandated
agricultural and farm wages; cost-effective transportation facilities; rural
electrification; engaging the poor and working people in democratic
processes, such as in labour and civic organizations; fostering public
dialogue on environmental conservation issues; and developing social
movements through the establishment of a civil society to promote
environmental conservation and other grassroots projects.” (1996:950).
Concerted public action and the ability of the state to respond actively to
public demands, he identifies have been the reason for the remarkable
performance of the state in human development.
Critical thinking on the Kerala Model has recognised the vital role of the
state in the establishment of policies and practices that were responsible
for the rapid social changes in Kerala. This Report too holds out the same,
but it is no panegyric to the much vaunted model. Arguing that the
conventional notion of the Kerala model as that of a paradox between
social development and economic backwardness no longer holds true, the
report highlights the current shortcomings of the model and the
challenges that it faces. Significant among the problems are those of
continuing high rates of educated unemployment, deprivation in a general
sense that overrides the official estimates of poverty and the horizontal
and gender inequalities of development that raise significant questions on
the apparent success of this development paradigm. Considering the
centrality of the role of a pro active State in the implementation of the
policies, the possibility of its continuation within the global meta-narrative
of neo liberal ideology needs examination.
The recent spurt in economic growth have largely been the result of
increasing remittances from abroad and the structural changes in the
economy. Industrial and employment generating growth have, for the
most part, continued to elude the state. The report identifies the need for
qualitative changes in education as a primary goal towards dealing with
this situation. It advocates the continued presence of the State’s active
intervention in ensuring socio-economic justice to the voiceless, the
socially disadvantaged, the working class and the poor. A qualitative shift
in the delivery of public policy decisions in health, education, PDS that at
once links development with growth while also reducing horizontal
inequalities and gender unfreedom is the only way for the meaningful
continuance of Kerala’s exemplary growth in the 21st century.