Kerala is aiming to achieve a quantum jump in ‘Ease of doing business’ rankings from 21 to be among the top 10 by next year. A series of initiatives has been set in motion with this in mind, said M Beena, Managing Director, Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation. Digitisation, delegation and disclosures are the three domains targeted for the purpose. The new web portal Kerala Single Window Interface for Fast Disposal and Transparency (K-SWIFT) offers a unified application for securing permits, Beena told BusinessLine . This is being integrated with a unique Intelligent Building Planning Management Software. The reforms promote voluntary disclosures by entrepreneurs. Permits are issued based on self-certification but false claims would invite stiff penalties. Excerpts:
Kerala has been paired with joint-topper Andhra Pradesh to improve its ranking. What has been the experience so far?
The experience of Andhra Pradesh has been a guiding factor but grassroot-level issues are totally different here. Specific reforms such as online clearance mechanism or establishment of a dedicated help desk for investors have been copied for replication. But there is an array of others such as notification of Standard Operating Procedures or timelines for clearances and setting up of an Investment Promotion and Facilitation Cell, which benchmark Kerala against other states.
What does Kerala have to change for better ranking?
The ranking is a benchmark for many of the reform measures but may not always reflect the ground reality. Our focus has been on bringing in a drastic change in the mindset of officials and eliminate obsolete and redundant procedures.
Reforms undertaken so far seek to address specific shortfalls. A comprehensive regime has been put in place for issue of deemed licences beyond the timelines specified in the Right to Service Act. Relevant amendments have also provided for self-certification and third party certifications for obtaining clearances.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the ultimate challenge lies in being able to sustain the improvement in ranking.
The ranking mechanism has been in constant flux right from 2015 when it was first attempted. The changes range from an increase in the total number of questions to those in the various focus areas of reform. The next year is not going to be any different and the reforms being implemented have to evolve accordingly.
Ranking may interest an investor but what matters most will be the ground realities presented by the enabling ecosystem. And that is where the State is striving to make progress. Any proactive step taken here will ultimately culminate in a higher percentage score in the next year’s ranking.
There is a view that the ranking captures 'de jure' processes than 'de facto' realities on ground. What is your experience here?
Our effort has been specifically planned to bridge this gap. We have focused on a two-pronged strategy whereby points need to be scored and ranking improved while ensuring that ground realities reflect the ranking.
The first priority was to create an enabling ecosystem to provide timely clearances in an effective and transparent manner and to ensure that this is maintained.
Changes to various Acts/rules were made keeping in mind the specific requirements of investors as also the reform measures suggested by the World Bank and the DIPP (Department of Industrial Promotion and Policy).
In the Indian context, it is the business environment in Delhi/Mumbai that gets assessed. Is there a need to assess each State for what it is?
Yes. Specific focus needs to be given to various strengths of a State. For instance, in our case, the excellent road, air and water connectivity, ideal law and order situation, and adequate supply of qualified manpower should set us apart. But none of them is considered in the present format of ranking. This calls for a mechanism to develop a holistic survey process wherein each State is ranked on its strengths and weaknesses. The reform suggestions should be based on them.
A grading mechanism to this effect is ideal rather than being asked to replicate reform models of other States. Each State should ideally come up with a unique model that aligns best with the reform suggestions of the World Bank.