There is no evidence of any such prioritisation. If there is prioritisation and focus, positive externalities snowball. Unless one believes that everything is in our stars (genes), Ethiopia and Kenya in middle-distance running, Jamaica in sprints, Uzbekistan in boxing and wrestling demonstrate focus does matter. Will we ever obtain focus in public expenditure? It certainly hasn’t happened in other areas of public expenditure. Therefore, unlike core governance areas like health, education, law and order, roads, electricity, why should the government spend money on fostering athletes? We aren’t China, the Soviet Union or GDR and there is no half-way house towards that model. Instead, post-1991, the model we are veering towards is the private resource-driven model of the US and the UK.

Not only is that more efficient, it also tends to be more decentralised and better at targeting. All of Kenya didn’t produce runners; a very small geographical area did. India’s 2008 success is also limited to a small geographical area. To this, one can add another speculative point. Post-1991 reforms have switched focus to the individual, as opposed to the collective identity. Does that translate into greater possible success in individual sports, as opposed to collective ones? Cricket is an exception. Barring that, all of India’s successes have been individual and all National Club Games identify the collective. Field hockey successes should probably be restricted to the domain of Bollywood films.

The writer is a noted economist

express@expressindia.com