Public Expenditure - Private Profit?

Internet is a digital infrastructure. It was developed by DARPA (U.S. Agency for development of defence related projects) to serve as a secure means of communication for U.S. Defence forces. Same story goes with G.P.S which was developed to serve military purposes for the United States. Now imagine what would have our world been had these agencies not opened up these services for universal access and private innovation? There would be no  Google, Google Maps, Facebook, Ola or Uber which are only few in a list of thousands of other services which have evolved out of these digital infrastructures. Now the big debate which has been a crucial component of public discourse for past 50 years is, whether the private gains made by the use of Infrastructure developed by public money is justified? Now, if the debate goes for publicly developed digital infrastructures, it must make sense to discuss the same for other publicly funded projects which all of us use, for example roads (after all, they are also used to derive private gains). But similar debates have rarely popped up in the latter cases. What creates this disparity? This disparity has often been attributed to the blind spot which we have developed towards the greater public good which has been generated out of the digital infrastructures. We believe that a beggar is able to derive livelihood from physical infrastructures such as a road and so is a Business tycoon, but that is not the case with digital infrastructures. What therefore becomes crucial is establishing quanta of public good which will commensurate the degree of universal access to these publicly developed digital infrastructures, and subsequent private gains. Technological advancements have, not always but most of the times, been useful for mankind, these advancements have made our lives simpler. Developing some technologies from scratch might require huge investments which are not available with private players. Therefore development of such projects with taxpayer’s money is often the only viable option. Once an infrastructure is in place, subsequent improvements are easier to achieve and a slew of other services can be built upon that network. These secondary services have a greater reach among masses, for the very reason that they have been developed to serve the same. Not all secondary services will be universally viable but in the long run these secondary services will in indirect or direct forms start reaching the masses. Internet was developed for the sole purpose of serving U.S. Defence agencies, but over a period of time it has augmented its ambit of services to getting food on a poor’s plate. What is important is to realize the fact that what is not visible today might be ubiquitous tomorrow. What also is important is a sense to visualize the potential of growth in any technology. Asking private players to pay back for the basic technologies, will never incentivise future developments. Private gains, for as long as they are legal and adding up in the process of creating greater value for the society, are therefore justified. (This article is inspired from Nandan Nilekani’s recent article on “Universal access to Aadhar for greater good”) -Siddharth Gupta