Livelihood choices and promotion

OUT OF FOCUS

There is hardly ever a gathering of micro finance practitioners without a lament regarding the dearth of knowledge in the sector.

Termed "capacity building", training is the single largest concern of all micro finance organisations after refinance.

Expectedly, there are now many who specialise in imparting this training on topics that range from accounting practices to curbing credit delinquency.

This need for trained personnel has led both Sewa and Basix, two of the largest and most professionally run microfinance organisations to start training centres of their own.

While the Sewa school for microfinance has already opened its doors and has started courses, Basix is yet to do so.

I have been privy to a lot of thoughts of Sankar Datta, dean of the school set up by Basix and the dilemma that he faces before he can start up.

As is always the case in any pioneering effort, the only guiding light is intuition and therefore all the more reason to ponder before the plunge.

But what plagues Datta more than the question of relevant curriculum or adequate funding, is to what end livelihood training? And it is to this question that there may not be glib suggestions.

If one were to suppose that any student brought up in the metros or urban towns have not at all been sensitised to requirements of the rural areas, then any training has to arm them with knowledge of the rural areas.

Even if that was possible, what is really a cause for concern, as any bank, NGO or citizen sector organisation will vouch for, is in any effort to intervene in the life of villagers, the most difficult task is to know how to intervene or find the right economic activity.

The question therefore is can any training equip students to understand what would be the right activity for which there would be a market, especially in the context of globalisation and changing value systems.

With increasing competition, stagnating agricultural prices, reducing margins for the farmers, leading to lowering of effective wage rates, market demand favouring labour-replacing technologies, what are the choices for addressing the livelihood issues of the poor? Especially for those who have nothing other than their labour to sell?

One possibility is promoting more labour intensive technologies, by building a value for labour-intensive products and services.

Not withstanding the intrinsic value, the price of a product often depends on the price that society attaches to it. This depends on current trends and hype.

Like in recent years, society has laid stress on products being environmentally friendly and thus today all products which fulfil this criteria can demand a premium.

But a whole host of products, like the earthen chai cup, unpolished rice, handloom fabrics, terracotta mugs, are all getting lost because there are no Tendulkars or Aamir Khans to endorse them.

In a country where more than 700 million have only their labour to sell, there is no campaign to hype labours of love.

And therein lies the challenge of the school. It may not be enough to teach credit delivery and account keeping in a situation of limited livelihood opportunities.

However, Datta and others of his ilk realise that it is not for them to answer the question of livelihood choices.

For them the situation is a given. Within the constraints of the situation they need to address more tactical issues. As Datta sets up the Indian School of Livelihood Promotion, the decisions to be made are many.

First, the profile of the students that it would wish to attract: should the school strive to be like the IIMs and try to attract the best brains in the country interested in working in this sector, or would that be too elitist?

Would it not be better to take the school nearer to the people this sector is meant to serve, both physically and emotionally? Should the teaching be in English or in regional languages?

There is also some brainstorming on whether it is at all possible to think in terms of bringing down costs by renting infrastructure and faculty.

In other words is it necessary to have a physical structure or is it enough to have a concept and borrow the rest? But if faculty is indeed part time, would the commitment not falter?

Or what about the possibility of a lower cost structure by training in e-modules? Or is it unwise to think that all those who wish to be trained would have access to computers and the Internet?

Equally important are questions of funding. While the fact that the need is there is not in doubt if the 700 million in the rural areas are to be brought into the mainstream of the Indian economy, nobody knows who is willing to pay for it.

Banks, insurance companies, FMCG companies, fertiliser companies, pharmaceutical companies, telecom companies, cycle companies, building material companies "" all have a stake in raising the income levels of rural India.

But are all of them waiting for someone else to lay the foundation. Or is it possible that if there was a catalyst with a coherent plan, companies would be willing to come forward to contribute to the kitty.

(The columnist has been a journalist and has worked in the financial sector.)

keyasarkar@yahoo.co.in