In the 1990s, these two political scientists popularized the idea that mutual trust prevailing in the society can affect economic prosperity. Since then, there have been a number of studies by economists showing that when people trust each other, the community prospers. Research has revealed that people living in high trust societies keep their community cleaner, manage community projects better, are less likely to commit crime, invest more in business, get better access to loans, and are more likely to innovate. These are all vital for economic growth.
It might very well be that one reason Madhes is lagging behind is that the mutual trust among its inhabitants is low. I do not know of any study that surveys the level of trust in these regions. But if a survey were conducted and respondents were asked to rate how much they trust each other on a scale of 1 to 10, one would most likely find a lower trust score in Madhes than in the Hills. There is anecdotal evidence that supports this hypothesis. Someone who has lived in Janakpur as well Surkhet will tell you that the fruits in your backyard are more likely to be plucked without your consent in Janakpur.
There could be many reasons why trust is lower in the Madhes: Ethnic heterogeneity is one of them. Madhesh remains a society fragmented by caste, ethnicity, religion and gender. Inter-community faith is very low. Pahadis are suspicious of Madhesis, Madhesis of Pahadis, Brahmans of Yadavs, Yadavs of Teli, and so on. Apart from mundane business transactions, interaction between these communities is dismal. As a result, mutual trust between these groups remains abysmal. They all believe that the other group does not like them or trust them. And each group is quick to unite against the other.
Since any kind of communal work requires collaboration, it is quite plausible to propose that one of the reasons why Madhes has poor schools, dirty streets, and poorly-maintained infrastructure is that people living in the Madhes do not trust each other.
When members of the community do not trust each other, it can be difficult to achieve even trivial tasks. For example, if you do not trust your colleague, it is unlikely that you will work together, and even if you do, the project is less likely to be successful. Since any kind of communal work requires collaboration, it is quite plausible to propose that one of the reasons why Madhes has poor schools, dirty streets, and poorly-maintained infrastructure is that people living in the Madhes do not trust each other.
There is some encouraging news, however. It may be possible to develop trust between members of the community. And it may be possible to do so in a short span of time. In an article published in the American Economic Review, three political scientists from Stanford University report the results of an experiment conducted in Liberia. Villages in north Liberia were randomly assigned international aid for community-driven projects. Social cohesion was measured before and after the project, and the results were compared with a group of villages where there was no aid assigned. The results showed that mutual trust increased upon the completion of the project. What is even more encouraging is that the increased level of trust appears to persist.
These results are striking. The conventional view has been that it takes a long time to build trust. Furthermore, because it was a randomized experiment, the validity of the findings are higher than previous studies.
One lesson that can be drawn from this is that NGOs and the government should increase the number of community-driven projects. The money should go directly to the villages. When executing these projects, villagers should be mandated to have steering committees that reflect the diversity of their community in terms of caste, religion, ethnicity and gender. Such a mandate will not only discourage elite capture, but also enhance the ability of different communities to work together.
There is also a lesson for the critics of the reservation system in this study. Let us take the case of two people applying for a job as a section officer: Mr Karki who belongs to the overrepresented group, and Ms Bhagat who belongs to the marginalized group. Let us say Mr Karki has scores in the top one percentile, and Ms Bhagat in the top 10 percentile. Critics of the reservation system for minorities would argue that since Mr Karki performed better on the civil service exam, he should be given the job. But, according to this study, if we want to develop mutual trust between different communities, it is wiser to hire Ms Bhagat.
Writer is an Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at Texas A&M International University in Texas, US
680anand@gmail.com
Related story
E-learning centers in Banepa community schools
