It doesn’t trickle down

Processes of knowledge diffusion reinforce inequalities. We need explicit pro-poor targeting of efforts

Written by Martin Ravallion | Published:February 11, 2016 12:00 am
free basic rights, poor people rights, mark zuckerberg, trai, net neutrality Facebook’s “Free Basics” platform aimed to provide free access to a selected slice of the internet.

There is much enthusiasm today for efforts to improve access to information about poor people’s rights and entitlements. In a much-debated recent example, Facebook’s “Free Basics” platform aimed to provide free access to a selected slice of the internet (including, of course, Facebook).

In arguing for Free Basics, Mark Zuckerberg said that “everyone… deserves access to the tools and information that can help them to achieve all those other public services, and all their fundamental social and economic rights.” I think we would all agree; less obvious is how much Free Basics would do that. Critics argue that it is a “walled garden” approach — indeed, a threat to net neutrality. There are other options using subsidised internet data packs, as in the proposal for India made recently by Nandan Nilekani and Viral Shah. On February 8, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) ruled against differential pricing for data packages; so the country will not get Free Basics.

Neither the Facebook proposal nor that of Nilekani and Shah includes explicit pro-poor targeting of efforts to enhance information access. Is that needed? It might be argued that it is likely to be the poor who are least connected now, so the gains will automatically be greater for them. Against this, those who have the hardware and are currently connected are less likely to be poor and will probably be in the best position to benefit from these initiatives, including enjoying any new subsidies.

Before India decides on how to enhance information access, more needs to be known about how well information spreads at present. There is already lots of “public information” out there relevant to poor people in India, and there are various dissemination channels, including the internet. Are the poor still sufficiently well-connected socially to tap into the flow of knowledge, or does their poverty come with social exclusion, including exclusion from information about programmes designed to help poor people? Is a more explicitly targeted approach called for? In short, does new knowledge trickle down?

In arguing for subsidised internet data packs, Nilekani and Shah use the MGNREGA as a motivating example. The MGNREGA created a justiciable “right to work” for all rural households in India. The most direct and obvious way the scheme tries to reduce poverty is by providing extra employment in rural areas on demand. This requires an explicit effort to empower poor people, who must take deliberate unilateral actions to demand work on the scheme from local officials.

In a book I wrote with Puja Dutta, Rinku Murgai and Dominique van de Walle, Right to Work?, it was found that most people in rural Bihar had heard about the MGNREGA, but most were unaware of their rights and entitlements under the scheme. Women were especially ill-informed about these matters.

Given that about half the adults in rural Bihar are illiterate, an entertaining movie made sense as an information intervention to try to inform people about the scheme. The setting and movie we produced for this purpose are described in Right to Work? and you can see the movie on my website, The movie was tailored to Bihar’s specific context. Professional actors performed in an entertaining and emotionally engaging story-based plot whose purpose was to provide information on how the scheme works, who can participate and how to go about participating. The storyline was centred on a temporary migrant worker returning to his village from the city to see his wife and baby daughter. He learns that there is work available in the village under the MGNREGA, even though it is the lean season, so he can stay there with his family and friends rather than return to the city to find work. It was intended that the audience would identify strongly with the central characters.

With the aim of promoting better knowledge about the scheme in this setting, the movie was randomly assigned to sampled villages, with a control group not receiving the movie. Knowledge about the scheme was assessed in both treatment and control villages. Residents were encouraged to watch the movie but not, of course, compelled to do so. Some watched it and some did not. The movie was found to be successful in enhancing knowledge about the scheme.

In a new paper, “Social Frictions to Knowledge Diffusion”, written with Arthur Alik-Lagrange, I have used the movie to identify key aspects of how knowledge is shared within villages. The paper shows how such an information campaign can throw light on how new knowledge spreads within villages. It studies the impacts of knowledge, and the channel of that impact — notably, whether it was purely through the direct effect of watching the movie or whether it was through knowledge-sharing within villages.

While we find robust evidence of knowledge-sharing, the knowledge diffusion process within villages is far weaker for disadvantaged groups, defined in terms of caste, landholding, literacy or consumption poverty. For poor people, the direct effect of watching the movie is all that really matters to learning about the MGNREGA. In the main, it is the non-poor who learn from knowledge-sharing. There is also some indication of negative spillover effects for illiterate and landless households, suggesting the strategic spread of misinformation.

More knowledge about public programmes like the MGNREGA does not assure an effective public response on the service supply side.

The movie worked quite well in enhancing knowledge, but the supply-side response was still poor. Right to Work? also documents a number of specific, fixable deficiencies in the responsiveness of the MGNREGA in Bihar to the needs of poor people.

There is no denying that efforts are needed to improve the access of poor people to knowledge about public services that can help them. But these new research findings also suggest that such efforts need to be directly targeted to poor groups, rather than relying on prevailing processes of knowledge diffusion, which may simply reflect, and reinforce, existing inequities.


The writer, former director of the World Bank’s research department, is Edmond D. Villani Chair of Economics at Georgetown University, Washington DC

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. S
    Feb 11, 2016 at 5:15 am
    I support Prof. Ravallion's viewpoint in part, we do need "free" or "subsidized" access to a selective target group in context of education, which he refers to as "Knowledge diffusion" . In rural India, we face the issue of inadequate school infrastructure, missing, incompetent or unqualified teachers , for which the students, and ultimately,the nation has to suffer . With the increased pority of smartphones (India has become 2nd largest market !) , it becomes possible to take the school to the student, via prepared videos of the cles that match the textbooks , tutorials, practice tests, discussions among students all distributed in electronic form. Now, this will need subsidized access to select education sites, else nobody will take a Rs147/350MB per month package just for this. Even if they do, the 'attraction'of watching a 'movie' on YouTube may be greater than downloading education materials ...
    1. K
      K SHESHU
      Feb 11, 2016 at 11:41 am
      Efforts from internet giants are on to make access of net connectivity dearer to the poor and under privileged. Free basics is one of the many tools they are desperately trying to employ for their monetary gains
      1. A
        Feb 11, 2016 at 4:47 am
        Earlier UPA Govts. worked to establish a dedicated networks for technical insutions. - Don't know present status- But, only BSNL is involved! None of private enterprises, who were given licenses with explicit pact Of an idea, to spread cheap connectivity all across India has not been achieved so far. There are conflicting needs of different groups- one trying to maximise profits after investing heavily; another group (of adv. users) changing own handsets compatible to newer tech.; the lesser ones, in tier 2, 3 towns using internet cafes; some still using conventional telephones; some still stuck with low capacity/ low speeds due to high pricing etc etc. Yes, if Govt. wants to spread net-usage on a Mission, it must make it a RULE for all operators to at least support clutches of low-cost Net-Cafes in rural areas to start with ( Much like what Rajiv hi did by promoting Public call centers- which still do business in some places and which can be simply upgraded to very cheap NET-CAFES). If Govt. decides to gently nudge private operators.. ..I think, they too will fall in line. Why not HRD ministry take up the task of first establishing 100% connectivity to all edu. insutions irrespective of their location, nature etc, starting from CL- 5 onward to higher edu. levels at least immediately? ''This will prove to real progress on full computer literacy in India!'' Govt. must ask private players too to engage in it. Yet another ( though unconnected one) point is, during recent Chennai's floods private nets failed. Govt. must make it MANDATORY to all operators to ensure 100 % up-time too, failing which, stiff penalty must be levied. --Here on, we will talk only of 100% !-- ( Else Facebook will have last laugh)
        1. G
          G M
          Feb 11, 2016 at 3:05 pm
          People are very aware because of electronic Medea and R.T.I. . In village panchayti raj (local bodies) are the other reason for people to get knowledge. Facebook has never been considered as a viable source of information. So, inaccessibility to facebook is not going to hamper access to knowledge.
          1. G
            G M
            Feb 11, 2016 at 7:12 pm
            What ever name you give. Soviet breaked because Gorbachev, the Soviet President was bribed by America through C.I.A. Communist China is another example . Ambaniand Adani imerge from obscure background and one day announce we are here just by sweating out and you think public will believe it. No, we know how our system is manuplated to favour Rich's at the cost poor's. Latest example is 1.5 lakh carore lone write off. Every action has equal and apposite reaction. Croni capitalism will give rise to parity oriented awakening and will result in settling the score.
            1. G
              G M
              Feb 12, 2016 at 10:39 am
              The only thing remains to be proved to justify claim to you is to say either China is not communist or China is backward
              1. J
                Feb 11, 2016 at 6:54 am
                Here's a direct link to the film the author is referring to: (Would advise the editor to put in direct links in articles to get more views)
                1. R
                  Feb 11, 2016 at 5:12 pm
                  Please consider the following example: Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani each inherited an equal amount of wealth from their father, yet Mukesh today has thrice as much as Anil does. Did the former indulge in larceny, cheating or any other illegal means to get ahead of his younger brother? You may say that Mukesh got lucky, but you can't accuse him of any wrongdoing. Scale down this scenario, and you will find that the situation at the ground level is similar, though not necessarily identical. It is not quite correct to say that the rich in India got rich because they indulged in the usurpation of the poor. Winston Churchill said, "Capitalism consists of an unequal distribution of blessings, while communism consists of an equal distribution of misery." The collapse of Soviet Union has taught us that communism/socialism may sound good, but it is not a viable model. The trouble in India is that people's mindset is still governed by the incorrect communist manifesto.
                  1. R
                    Feb 11, 2016 at 2:50 am
                    Please stop using phrases like "pro-poor" and "pro-rich," and start using phrases like "pro-growth" and "pro-development." Any discourse, however well-meaning, that creates a division of the society, is pernicious in the long run. A dichotomy breeds ill-will between seemingly exclusive groups. Therefore, take a holistic view. In the process, everybody will grow. When the sun rises, it rises for everybody. No wonder, our forefathers talked about "sarvajan hitay, sarvajan sukhay."
                    1. Load More Comments