By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
A study by Harvard’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness in collaboration with the Mint, India’s second largest leading business newspaper has branded Meghalaya as the most competitive state amongst
the north eastern states. Among many reasons the study highlights Meghalaya’s compound average annual growth at 10.8 % and its GSDP valued at 27,300 crores rupees in 2014-14. The study also mentioned
Meghalaya’s rich forest resources, agro based potential, hydroelectricity and the education system which is considered as important parameters necessary for staying competitive. These are no doubts
Meghalaya’s strength the same of which are present in most north eastern states which possessed equally abundant resources. The study however fails to highlight the weakness and the difficulty in creating
opportunities in the state which have become the curse of Meghalaya and other north eastern states. For a start the North eastern states including Meghalaya have inherent problems that are geographical,
geopolitical and social unrest that have mitigated all measure to impart the requires competitiveness to local entrepreneurs and other forms of skills required for competition.
Michael Porter’s seminal work on the Five competitive Forces model is a simple but powerful tool to examine the complexity of power dynamics in business situation. His work gains recognition for pioneering SWOT and PEST analysis. Michael Porter’s Five Forces model analyzes a). Competitiveness of an industry b) Potential of new entrants into industry c) Bargaining Power of Suppliers d) Bargaining Power of
Customers and e) Threat of Substitute products. Porter’s five forces model is used to identify an industry’s structure in order to determine its corporate strategy. Porters model is also applied for
any segment of the economy since it used to identify strength and weakness which could impact the profitability of an industry in an environment where the five forces remains elusive. According to the
model, if the five forces are strong they increase competition and if they are weak they decrease competition. Based on this model, the study has branded Meghalaya as one of the most competitive states in
the north east. We can assume based on the summary of the study that the five forces are strong in Meghalaya. But is this true?
The idea that competition is necessary for growth rate which contributes to gross domestic product is no longer attractive. The GDP as an indicator of growth is no longer an appropriate measurement of a
growth or progress since it is restricted to a nominal value. In fact for public policy to rely on GDP growth rate is a mistake that is now avoided in most countries including India. According to data released
by the now defunct Planning Commission (PC) the provisional growth rate for Meghalaya in 2013-14 was 12.41 % which is one of the highest in the country. Hence the information as far as the study is concerned
is not new. However the data extrapolated from the PC was not a big deal but it seems to be something else coming from an international institution.
There seems to be some disconnect between the analysis of the study and the prevailing ground realities. For some strange reason the study mentioned the presence of NIFT and RGIIM in the state though how these professional institutions contribute to the competitiveness of Meghalaya is not spelt out. One therefore wonders if competition means having more professional institutions. This correlation needs proper
analysis by research scholars and academicians since there are increasing number of institutes in state with little or no credentials to their name. The education system is Meghalaya is one of the most
privatized sector but without a regulator to ensure they maintain quality education. The CMJ scam and its denotification by the government which occurred only a few years back where PhD and other
degrees were sold like hot cakes have not discourage more private institution to set up business in the state. Nothing much has changed as far as education is concerned. The absence of an education policy
is also responsible for the government’s lackadaisical attitude to education in terms of budgetary allocation etc. The quality of education in terms of research and development from government run and
private institutes which are crucial factors for raising competition is another cause of concern for the state.
The study also fails to analyze the complete lack of infrastructure and communication which are vital for its progress and development. On these counts the state has nothing much to boast about. We have a
negligible railway network, an unreliable airport, transport and communication services for marketing and market accessibility is pathetic to say the least. Cost overruns and extended deadlines have
become the norm for all kinds of infrastructural projects in the state. Then there is case of massive corruption in all these mega projects which is partly affected due to red tapism in the system. The
construction and mining sector have put the future of the state in question. Important and pressing issues such as environmental degradation and ecological imbalance seems irrelevant to the study.
The real picture is not hunky dory as pronounced. The problem of relying on an outside study is that it fails to connect with ground realities. And to this extent we should not buy the analysis of the
study. Period.