Executive Chairman of the Board, Autodesk
In principle, I'm in favor of Special Economic Zones. They have a good track record of success as engines for growth. Probably the best example is Shenzhen, China - which grew from a small village to a city of more than 10 million people in just two decades. The World Bank estimates there are now more than 3000 zones in 120 countries.Naysayers have problems with the suspension of existing policies for the zones. They ask, "Shouldn't everyone be playing by the same ground rules?" Not necessarily. Sometimes the greater good is served by active intervention on behalf of growth.
I grew up in a farming community in the Midwest. The successful farmers I knew were very active interveners. They tested the soil and added modifiers to suit the crops they were growing. They were prepared to intervene all during the growing season - whether this meant more weeding, crop spraying or an early harvest.Driving through the countryside, all planted fields look pretty much alike. But to farmers, every field is a special case. Do some fields get "special treatment?" Of course. But the overall goal is to maximize the value of the crops on the entire farm. Precision farming demonstrates how extraordinarily effective carefully executed intervention can be. Crop yields have risen dramatically by using GPS and tractor-based computers to treat many individual grid units of a farm field as special cases.
India needs Special Economic Zones to jumpstart growth. Once healthy, free-market growth cycles have been established, special treatment will likely not necessary. To withhold intervention simply to curtail possible infractions or deny advantages to economic risk takers is to let potentially productive resources lie fallow.
Bottom line: India needs robust, value-creating growth - not by-the-book, bureaucratic micromanagement.
