Introduction
NASA’s projected cost of its Mars mission stands at $679 million. In contrast, the Indian Space Research Organization’s (ISRO) Mars mission has spent $600 less to launch the same mission (Burke, 2013). Nevertheless, ISRO has been heavily criticized for its huge spending on this mission.
Critics argue that this money should have been used to alleviate poverty in a country whose over 320 million citizens live below the poverty line. Moreover, this quest has been branded as an attempt to “steal an interplanetary march on India’s regional rival, China” (Ajey, 2013, p. 1). The Mangalyaan (the spacecraft), which was launched on November 2013, is the first mission to the red planet by an Asian country.
In any given country, the allocation of resources should involve prioritizing and sequencing by the government. This implies that, based on the concept of opportunity cost, priority should be given to projects that are beneficial to the people. The writer of this paper argues that India’s mission to Mars indicates a lack of prioritization by the national government and therefore, a waste of resources. It would have been better if India had spent these funds on its poor people and country instead of spending it on the mission.
The Mangalyaan Mission to Mars
India’s mission to the red planet aims to collect scientific evidence of life on Mars, to show its technology, and to gain national pride by being the first Asian country to launch the mission (Burke, 2013). However, India has many problems and governance issues that need urgent attention.
The concept of opportunity cost dictates that, at an individual level as well as at the collective level, prioritizing and sequencing are essential in the allocation of limited resources (Shukla, 1996). Thus, societal priorities should determine a government’s allocation of public resources. The correct and fair allocation of resources determines the prosperity of any society, and, by extension, that of a nation.
India’s mission to Mars, though a noble one, cannot be justified using the concept of opportunity cost. It can only be justified on the basis that it will broaden our understanding of the red planet. This may be construed as a benefit. However, the cost of this mission raises concerns about the government’s prioritization approach.
Although India spent $600 less of what NASA spent on a similar mission, the salient issue, in the writer’s opinion, is the opportunity cost of this mission. In India, the 2013 mission to Mars was not a priority at that time and thus, a wrong decision. The resources would have been spent on other key economic projects.
Moreover, the findings of the Indian probe may not be relevant to the country. In particular, the scientific discoveries that the Mangalyaan may make will not directly benefit the people of India. The knowledge of Martian atmosphere or geology would be of little use considering the fact that over 320 million people in India are poor (Drèze & Sen, 2002).
Proponents may argue that basic research is beneficial to humanity. However, in the writer’s view, a probe of extraterrestrial bodies including Mars does not qualify as basic research. Basic research should help people identify useful technologies (Drèze & Sen, 2002). In this regard, India should invest in basic research in R&D areas that would benefit its people.
There are many research and development areas where India can spend its resources. One such area is solar power. In the recent past, over 600 million citizens in India experienced severe power cuts (Burke, 2013). Basic research in solar power generation would yield a technology that would directly benefit the population.
Such a technology would lead to reduced energy bills and increase the country’s capacity for research. Geographically, India’s location means that the country has a great potential for solar energy generation (Drèze & Sen, 2002). Thus, the country’s R&D should prioritize solar energy research as this would directly stimulate productivity and economic growth.
Besides basic research, a number of public services need government funding. Over 40% of children in India are severely malnourished and more than 50% of the Indian population lack access to toilets and sanitation services (Drèze & Sen, 2002). Also, the instability of the Indian rupee, poor governance and a relatively low economic growth rate (about 10%) raise concerns regarding the relevance of the Mangalyaan mission.
The main argument here is that India, as a developing nation, has many areas that need urgent public funding. Developing nations should invest in areas that benefit the citizens and leave extraterrestrial exploration to rich countries. It would be pointless to compete with the US, the European Space Agency and Russia in space exploration as such countries have a definitive comparative advantage over developing nations. In this view, a poor country’s R&D spending should be determined by priorities and benefits of the research.
National Pride vs. National Problems
It is argued that India’s mission to Mars will bring “a lot of national pride to the country” (Burke, 2013, p. 1). Globally, India joins the likes of the US, Russia and the European Space Agency that have sent missions to Mars. Indeed, India’s mission is no mean feat.
The country can pride itself in its technology and scientific knowledge. However, India has one of the lowest basic literacy levels in the world. It is ranked number 140 globally (Shukla, 1996). Thus, it can be argued that the $75 million spent on the Mars mission should have been used to improve basic literacy in the country.
India’s low literacy level needs an urgent solution. An educated population would be essential for social and economic development of the country.
According to Narasimha (2008), India’s education system has failed and needs urgent review to incorporate advanced technologies and content in learning. Thus, using the $75 million to address the literacy problems would have helped the country grow economically and socially. For instance, the Indian government can fund a research to identify a solution to the country’s literacy problem.
The legal system is another area that needs urgent attention. There is a backlog of cases in the Indian courts (Narasimha, 2008). Therefore, public resources should be directed at expanding the justice system. This will have direct public benefits. Other areas that need urgent public funding include public sanitation services, the legal system and poverty alleviation. These are some of the important areas that India would have used the $75 million to develop instead of spending it on the mission to Mars.
Conclusion
Due to limited resources, public spending needs prioritizing and sequencing. As a developing country, India needs to prioritize the areas of public spending based on their public benefits. Although the country spent a relatively small sum of money to launch its Mars mission, the country has many priority areas that need urgent attention.
The high levels of poverty and the low literacy levels indicate that the decision to launch a mission to Mars was a bad one. The scientific data from this mission will have fewer benefits to the citizens. Thus, if that money had been spent on key areas of the economy such as education and public sanitation, the Indian economy would have made a great leap forward.
References
Ajey, L. (2013). Mission to Mars: India’s Quest for the Red Planet. New York: Springer.
Burke, J. (2013). ISRO to launch India’s first Spacecraft to Mars. Web.
Drèze, J., & Sen A. (2002). India: development and participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Narasimha, R. (2008). Science, Technology and the Economy: An Indian Perspective. Technology in Society, 30(2), 330-338.
Shukla, S. (1996). From pre-colonial to post-colonial: Educational transitions in southern Asia. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(22), 344-349.