Success or Opportunity Lost? Naveen Patnaik’s tenure as CM

Naveen Patnaik was the Chief Minister of Odisha for over 24 years, leading his party, the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), to multiple electoral victories since 2000. His long tenure is often hailed as a testament to political stability, governance reform, and poverty alleviation. He was the sole source of power in both the Government and the party. Something that should have heralded drastic changes and reduction in corruption. However, when scrutinized closely, this prolonged period of rule may not be as successful as it is made out to be. While Patnaik’s social programs have been widely celebrated, his lack of bold reforms in critical areas such as job creation, industrial growth, and combating corruption raises significant concerns about his tenure. Isn’t a golden opportunity lost?

The Successes:

1. Poverty Alleviation Programs: Naveen Patnaik’s government implemented numerous welfare programs aimed at reducing poverty. Initiatives such as the Odisha Livelihoods Mission (OLM), Biju Pucca Ghar Yojana (BPGY) for housing, and various food security schemes helped lift millions of people out of extreme poverty. Odisha’s reduction in poverty rate was from 57.2% (2004-05) to 29.35% (2019-20). India as a whole, in the same tenure went from 40.6% to 13.2%

2. Disaster Management: One of the most lauded aspects of Patnaik’s rule is Odisha’s resilience in disaster management. Cyclone Fani (2019) and Cyclone Phailin (2013) saw minimal loss of life thanks to robust evacuation and relief efforts, in stark contrast to the 1999 Super Cyclone, which devastated the state. The government invested in development of early warning systems and creation of disaster-resistant infrastructure.

3. Infrastructure Development: Patnaik's government focused on improving road connectivity and infrastructure development. The state saw considerable investment in rural roads and electricity coverage, which connected remote areas to mainstream development.

4. Women Empowerment: The Odisha government has introduced several programs to empower women, such as the Mission Shakti program, which provided support to women’s self-help groups (SHGs). This has been heralded as a key driver in enhancing financial independence among rural women. His government also introduced 50% reservation for women in PRIs, giving them much needed platform and voice.

5. Education and Health Initiatives: Under Patnaik, Odisha has made strides in improving literacy rates and healthcare access. Programs like the Odisha State Treatment Fund and Niramaya have been pivotal in improving healthcare for economically disadvantaged groups.

Debunking the "Success" Narrative

While these achievements are notable, many are limited to short-term gains without laying the groundwork for long-term economic transformation. Patnaik’s approach has been overwhelmingly welfare-centric, but it lacked structural reforms that could drive sustainable development. Here’s why these successes fall short of true progress:

1. Poverty Alleviation: Although poverty reduction is often celebrated as one of his key achievements, it has largely been driven by direct welfare schemes rather than creating employment opportunities or developing robust economic frameworks. The poverty reduction largely stems from central schemes rather than state initiatives. Further, welfare schemes like rice distribution programs (₹1/kg rice scheme) or financial grants (Kalia Scheme for farmers) provide immediate relief but do not empower citizens to become economically independent in the long run. Odisha’s per capita income continues to lag behind the national average, reflecting the failure to create wealth and sustainable economic development. Despite the reduction in absolute poverty, Odisha remains among the bottom five states in per capita income. 

2. Infrastructure Development – Lagging Behind Industrialization: Although infrastructure has improved, Odisha's inability to attract major industries and service sector companies is a glaring gap in Patnaik’s governance. While other states like Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Maharashtra became industrial and manufacturing hubs, Odisha remained reliant on mining and agriculture. Naveen Patnaik had an overwhelming majority in government but failed to enact bold reforms or attract large-scale industries. The lack of large manufacturing units means job creation has been dismal. Odisha’s unemployment rate remains higher than the national average. Manufacturing sector contribution to GSDP remains below 25%. 

3. Women Empowerment – Isolated Progress: While Mission Shakti has empowered many women financially, the broader economy of Odisha remains stagnant. Empowering women through SHGs does little if there is no broader ecosystem that promotes job creation, industrial participation, or integration into the formal economy. Many women in SHGs still struggle to scale up or integrate their small businesses into larger market systems, reducing the transformative potential of these initiatives.

The Missed Opportunities

Naveen Patnaik’s tenure could have been transformative in the way Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership reshaped Singapore, but it wasn’t. Despite having a majority in government and an extended tenure, Patnaik failed to take bold, visionary steps toward industrialization and modernization. While Lee Kuan Yew transformed Singapore from third-world to first-world economy by taking radical steps to attract foreign investment, growing the manufacturing sector, and integrating Singapore into the global economy by establishing as a global financial hub, building world-class infrastructure, and having zero tolerance for corruption, Patnaik took no such strides. While I take cognizance of the fact that I am comparing a state to a nation, my argument is to point to the fact that a longer tenure for a foreign educated CM who didn’t even speak the local language and who had seen first hand the development in US and Europe didn’t yield any disproportionate development. Odisha, rich in minerals and natural resources, was uniquely positioned to become an industrial powerhouse, yet the state remained dependent on mining with limited downstream industries. Odisha’s industrial policies have failed to attract significant private sector investment, with the state’s industrial growth trailing behind national figures.

Moreover, real estate mafias and corruption continue to plague Odisha’s governance. Land acquisition for industrial purposes has been mired in bureaucratic delays and corruption, inflating land prices and deterring investors. Despite his international education and exposure, Patnaik avoided the tough reforms necessary to combat these systemic problems.

Failures of Governance

1. Unemployment and Lack of Job Creation: Odisha’s inability to create jobs in the manufacturing and services sector stands as a glaring failure of Patnaik’s governance. According to recent data, Odisha’s unemployment rate has remained persistently higher than the national average. Unemployment rate of 7.1% (2021)is above national average and our youth migration continues unabated as skill development initiatives show poor outcomes. Most employment remains in the informal sector, with limited growth in high-value-added industries such as technology, pharmaceuticals, or manufacturing. While other states such as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat have built thriving technology and service sectors, Odisha has not seen comparable progress.

2. Corruption and Real Estate Mafia: Despite his image as a clean politician, Naveen Patnaik’s government has been criticized for its failure to tackle corruption and the growing influence of the real estate mafia. Land prices in urban areas have skyrocketed, making it difficult for investors to establish industries or housing projects at reasonable costs. With no apparent well-rounded economic development, the only reason why land prices in Bhubaneswar have jumped up is because of the consolidation of 5-6 local real estate mafias and their political backing that prevents entry of national players to develop better properties and increase competetion. The lack of transparency in land allocation processes has exacerbated the problem, creating a bottleneck in Odisha’s economic growth. 

3. Underperformance in Key Sectors: While Odisha has made some progress in agriculture and mining, sectors like manufacturing, IT, and services have seen little development. Other states that had similar challenges—such as West Bengal or Rajasthan—have made more progress in diversifying their economies and attracting large-scale investments in manufacturing and IT. I remember backing in early 2000s there was a lot of hue and cry that Bhubaneswar will become the new Bangalore as IT companies will follow Infosys's lead. 4 terms and 20 years later, that urban legend.

His supporters might argue that Naveen Patnaik’s focus on social welfare programs was necessary for Odisha’s poor population, and that large-scale industrialization could have led to environmental degradation and displacement. While it is true that poverty alleviation and disaster management were crucial, they are not mutually exclusive from industrial development. In fact, sustainable industrialization could have provided better long-term opportunities for Odisha’s impoverished population, creating jobs and raising living standards. States like Tamil Nadu, in spite of revolving governments, managed both welfare and industrial growth.

Moreover, Patnaik’s critics might defend his record by highlighting the relatively peaceful and stable governance in the state, as compared to more volatile regions in India. Stability, however, should not come at the cost of progress. For instance, Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore also faced significant challenges, but he implemented radical reforms to modernize the economy while maintaining social stability. Patnaik had the political capital to make brave decisions but refrained from doing so. 

Conclusion

The reason for writing this article is highlight my point that Naveen Patnaik’s 24-year tenure as Chief Minister of Odisha should not be construed as a resounding success. While his government’s efforts in poverty alleviation, disaster management, and women’s empowerment have had positive impacts, they fall short of transformative change. Odisha remains underdeveloped compared to other states in industrial growth, job creation, and economic diversification. Patnaik’s failure to address corruption, land acquisition issues, and the lack of bold reforms in key sectors suggests that his governance was marked by missed opportunities rather than lasting success. The state remains stuck in a cycle of welfare dependence without creating the foundations for long-term prosperity.

The true measure of leadership lies not in maintaining status quo through welfare schemes, but in transformative vision and execution. By this metric, despite his long tenure and political capital, Patnaik's governance falls short of what could have been achieved for Odisha. If educated and uncorrupt leaders are unable to change the state's direction, what hope do we place on the uneducated and the corrupt ones?