What if you can’t be the ‘very best’? Why, of course, you must try hard to be better at ‘being better’. Whether it is contestants in beauty pageants, educational institutions seeking to go up some notches in university/business-school rankings, or even countries which seek to attract investors by pitching themselves as ‘better’ and more attractive investment destinations, the game seems to be one of ticking the right boxes and catering to external perceptions of what matters, so as to win the game.
Take the case of the now-disgraced ‘Doing Business’ report, which was recently junked by the World Bank. The report, for the past 17 years, was followed by policymakers, corporate honchos and politicians, besides academics, and taught in business-school classrooms as a way of assessing a country’s business environment.
The junking of it has been framed as an issue related to ethical concerns, linked to data irregularities, especially in the survey’s treatment of countries such as China, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia and their being bumped up a few notches in the likely expectation of quid pro quo deals for the Bank. However, there are deeper concerns with the whole business of ratings and rankings.
Students in classrooms and media (both local and global) revel in reports of India doing better and improving its rank on the ‘Ease of Doing Business’ indicator.
India, undoubtedly, has done better, climbing a cool 79 positions in the five years between 2014 and 2019 to finally reach 63rd place (out of 190 economies) in the World Bank’s (WB) 2020 ‘Doing Business’ Report.
The obsession with ratings and rankings, in line with the predilection of Indians for tangible success metrics, results in our celebrating such ‘improvements’ without quite understanding the methodology or impact of such rankings on the larger goals affecting the lives of a larger group of stakeholders.
India’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ is based on such ease improving in just two Indian cities, Mumbai and Delhi. Clearly, there is no reason to celebrate when only two cities do better at ‘being better’.
Of course, inspired by the ‘Doing Business’ rankings, the Indian government has initiated improvements at the level of Indian states and Union territories (UTs) as well.
In 2014, based on the 10 business topics tracked and monitored by the World Bank’s report, the Centre came up with a Business Reform Action Plan (BRAP) for Indian states and UTs.
The implementation of these rankings and the Ease of Doing reforms by those administrative units has been linked to additional borrowing permissions for states, apart from other bounties, even if these reforms may merely mean a ‘race to the bottom’.
A perusal of the ‘Business Reforms’ on the WB website indicates a high value placed on such pauperizing ‘reforms’ as the US reducing its corporate income tax rate from 34% to 21% in 2018, and Hungary cutting the social tax rate paid by its employers from 22% to 19.5% in January 2018. Should India or other emerging economies pursue such policies? This remains a moot question.
The strategies used by countries or states trying to do better for maximum pay-offs may be analysed using game theory.
Consider the Prisoner’s Dilemma, which reveals why a ‘limited’ player game, involving 190 countries and/or 29 Indian states and seven UTs, would result in predictable dominant strategies.
A dominant strategy, by definition, is superior for it promises the maximum possible pay-off irrespective of what competitors do. Pursuing ‘Doing Business’ reforms appears to be a dominant strategy for emerging countries and backward states, with larger pay-offs envisaged in terms of greater foreign investment, larger central funding, etc.
However, in doing so, they may simply act as ‘prisoners’ of a Western paradigm of development and success, choosing sub-optimal (even if dominant) strategies, with their inferior fiscal and welfare implications for India. These are strategies that devote little attention to improving social equity and addressing ecological concerns.
Ratings and rankings, in general, promote a certain homogeneous paradigm of success, one which may not be in line with the specific needs of individual countries or even institutions.
The case of the Doing Business report being abandoned holds lessons for business schools and educational institutions trying to chase sub-optimal global standards as well.
The success-fetish of management education has made it fashionable to speak of “learning from failure”, even as we prostrate at the altar of global ratings and rankings and try hard to be part of an elite club of successes.
Changing the narrative will require a concerted effort on the part of Indian business schools to cooperate, challenge and set out a set of goals that are more relevant for us.
Or else, we run the risk of being trapped in similar Prisoner’s Dilemma situations that countries participating in the WB rankings found themselves in.
The WB has resolved the dilemma for participating countries for now by dumping that report. Countries may find themselves free to pursue different goals. Can Indian educational institutions now solve the Educator’s Dilemma for themselves?
https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/the-doing-better-syndrome-and-our-prisoner-s-dilemma-11632247006971.html
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.