• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

Ajay Kumar

THE most important reason for the abysmally low rate of progress in rural India is the compensation structure of employees involved in rural development.

Even a proprietor-run kiryana (retail) shop in an established locality in, say, Delhi faces management problems and there are good chances of mismanagement. In some of the most developed countries, a huge percentage of manufacturing and trading organisations, despite enjoying innumerable positive externalities, have had to down shutters after years of operations because of mismanagement.

Rural development takes place in a much more stringent environment. Unlike in private business, those who undertake the work have no personal stake. The infrastructure is underdeveloped and problems for a rural development worker include the lack of safe drinking water, poor health and schooling facilities, and so on.

Management, no doubt, requires competence, and higher levels of this attribute are obviously needed to tackle complex projects. Development in underdeveloped rural areas is far more difficult than doing business in big cities. Logically, therefore, which sector should draw better talent, rural or urban?

A number of bright and committed individuals, though, have given up the best of salaries to serve rural India. But their numbers are far too less to meet the country's requirement. While one must salute these individuals, they are often unable to appreciate the fact that the same level of commitment cannot be expected from everyone. They recruit people at low salaries, and those who join do so primarily because of the inability to get jobs elsewhere. And when the openings come, many would not think twice to switch jobs. So, is rural India being managed by those who cannot find jobs elsewhere?

When it comes to compensation, one or more issues are often mixed up. There is talk of money buying talent but not commitment, rural assignments needing a high level of commitment, and so on. These may be true, but one must not forget that a large number of competent, committed and concerned people would not venture into the rural sector, as it does not secure their future financially. Economic principles say that manpower is the most immobile resource, yet for higher wages, people often leave country and family for years. Will not India's manpower go to villages if the money is good? Going back to basic principles of economics, let us view manpower purely as a resource and then assess its legitimate price.

Consider an individual who has the option of choosing either of the two jobs on offer. One that involves working in a metro and from a plush office with various amenities provided by civic authorities to boot. The job content is straightforward, procedures well established and carries with it a number of perquisites. The other job is in a rural setting where living conditions are much worse and accepting a lower standard of living than one is used to. Now, if the urban assignment offers `X' as compensation, what should be on offer for rural one — X+, X/2 or X/4.

It is quite obvious that the rural workforce should get more their urban counterpart, as they also need to be compensated for the negative externalities of a rural setting.

The picture, at present, is very skewed. We have an IIM-A managing a shampoo brand for a multinational in Delhi, while the development of villages are being handled by graduates from unheard of universities.

It is ironical that the best of talent can be hired to promote a shampoo but the nation cannot seem to find to one to uplift its backward regions.

Our mindset or philosophy seems to be that, for noble causes, only selfless men would fit the job, earning just enough to sustain their livelihood. But as the country becomes more and more market oriented, one must appreciate that everything has a price, which is determined by factors of supply and demand.

The demand for high-calibre professionals willing to serve in rural areas is high but the supply is low because of the current wage structure. Wages need to be raised to the point where demand meets supply.

This will, in the long run, increase the supply of talented professionals to manage rural India better.

What is important is the cost-benefit analysis of a particular decision. If we can have more efficient managers for rural India, the higher wage bill would be more than compensated by higher yields, less corruption, better control mechanisms, faster adoption of development schemes and increased employment and incomes.

Hence, there is a strong need to attract the best of talent to rural India. The expense incurred on them by way of additional wages would but be a fraction of the size of projects that they would handle.

(The author heads rural placement portal, www.ruralnaukri.com.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Pitching higher

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line