Beyond Enumeration: Reframing the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 through Doughnut Economics | Jos Chathukulam & A M Jose

1. Introduction

Socio-economic reviews occupy a critical position within the architecture of governance, functioning not merely as repositories of statistical data but as instruments of diagnosis, evaluation, and policy direction. In principle, such documents are expected to synthesise empirical evidence, identify structural constraints, and provide actionable insights for decision-makers. In practice, however, many state-level reviews in India remain confined to descriptive enumeration, prioritising data compilation over analytical depth. The Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 exemplifies this tendency, offering an extensive yet largely uncritical account of sectoral performance (Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025).

This limitation is particularly significant in the context of Meghalaya, a state characterised by complex institutional arrangements, ecological vulnerability, and uneven development outcomes. The coexistence of formal state structures and customary governance systems, especially Autonomous District Councils, creates a layered political economy that cannot be adequately captured through conventional statistical reporting. Moreover, the state’s dependence on natural resources and its exposure to climate variability necessitate an approach to development that integrates ecological sustainability with economic planning.

Against this backdrop, the present paper evaluates the Review through the lens of Doughnut Economics, a framework that reconceptualises development as the pursuit of a “safe and just space” between social foundations and ecological ceilings (Raworth, 2017). By applying this framework, the paper seeks to move beyond a narrow critique of data gaps and instead interrogate the underlying assumptions, omissions, and implications of the Review. The central argument is that the document, in its current form, fails to fulfil its intended purpose, raising broader questions about the role of socio-economic reviews in contemporary governance.

2. Theoretical Framework and Literature Context

The critique of the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 is grounded in the conceptual framework of Doughnut Economics, which challenges the dominant growth-centric paradigm of development. According to Raworth (2017), economic success should not be measured solely by increases in output but by the extent to which societies ensure minimum standards of well-being while respecting ecological limits. This dual focus is particularly relevant for regions like Meghalaya, where development challenges are deeply intertwined with environmental sustainability and social equity.

The social foundation of the Doughnut encompasses essential dimensions such as health, education, income, and political voice, drawing on earlier frameworks such as the capability approach developed by Amartya Sen (Sen, 1999). Sen’s emphasis on expanding human capabilities provides a normative basis for evaluating development beyond income metrics, highlighting the importance of indicators such as maternal and infant mortality. Similarly, the ecological ceiling builds on the concept of planetary boundaries articulated by Rockström et al. (2009), underscoring the need to limit environmental degradation.

Within the Indian context, socio-economic reviews and economic surveys have traditionally prioritised macroeconomic indicators and sectoral outputs, often at the expense of distributional and ecological considerations (Dreze & Sen, 2013). Studies have also pointed to the limited analytical depth of such documents, noting their tendency to present data without engaging in causal analysis or policy critique (Himanshu, 2019). In the North-Eastern region, additional challenges arise from institutional complexity and data limitations, which further complicate the task of meaningful analysis (Baruah, 2020).

This paper builds on these critiques by applying the Doughnut framework to a specific state-level document, thereby illustrating how conceptual limitations translate into analytical shortcomings. In doing so, it also contributes to the broader discourse on the need for more integrated and participatory approaches to development reporting.

3. Conceptual and Analytical Limitations of the Review

A central limitation of the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 lies in its lack of a coherent conceptual framework. Development is implicitly treated as a function of sectoral growth and administrative performance, with little attention to the broader questions of social justice, sustainability, and institutional effectiveness. This absence of a guiding framework results in a fragmented narrative, where data is presented in isolation rather than as part of an integrated analysis.

The reliance on descriptive statistics, while useful for establishing baseline information, does not by itself constitute meaningful analysis. The Review provides extensive data on agriculture, infrastructure, and social sectors, but it does not engage with the underlying causes of observed trends. For instance, fluctuations in agricultural output are reported without examining factors such as market access, land tenure systems, or climate variability. Similarly, improvements in infrastructure are noted without assessing their distributional impact or long-term sustainability.

From the perspective of Doughnut Economics, this represents a failure to evaluate whether economic activities are contributing to the achievement of social foundations or respecting ecological limits. The absence of such analysis limits the document’s ability to inform policy, as decision-makers are left without a clear understanding of the trade-offs and constraints involved.

4. Institutional Blind Spots: The Omission of Autonomous District Councils
One of the most striking shortcomings of the Review is its failure to engage with Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) and traditional governance institutions. These bodies play a central role in Meghalaya’s political economy, particularly in areas related to land ownership, forest management, and local governance. Their omission from the Review represents not merely a gap in coverage but a fundamental analytical flaw.

The exclusion of ADCs reflects a broader tendency to privilege formal state structures over customary institutions, thereby presenting a partial and potentially misleading picture of governance. In reality, development outcomes in Meghalaya are shaped by the interaction between these different layers of authority, and any meaningful analysis must take this complexity into account. By ignoring these dynamics, the Review fails to capture the institutional context within which economic activities occur.

This omission also has implications for both dimensions of the Doughnut framework. On the one hand, it limits the assessment of social foundations by overlooking the role of community institutions in providing access to resources and services. On the other hand, it obscures the ecological dimension, as traditional governance systems often play a key role in managing natural resources. The result is an analysis that is disconnected from the lived realities of the state.

5. Neglect of Core Human Development Indicators

Another significant limitation of the Review is its inadequate engagement with critical health indicators such as maternal mortality rate (MMR) and infant mortality rate (IMR). These indicators are widely recognised as fundamental measures of human development, reflecting the effectiveness of health systems and the overall well-being of the population. Their marginalisation within the document raises serious questions about its priorities.

From a theoretical perspective, the neglect of MMR and IMR represents a failure to engage with the social foundation of development. As Sen (1999) argues, the expansion of human capabilities is the primary objective of development, and indicators such as mortality rates provide a direct measure of this expansion. By not foregrounding these metrics, the Review fails to assess whether the population is achieving basic standards of health and survival.

Moreover, the lack of detailed analysis of these indicators limits the document’s policy relevance. Without understanding the factors contributing to maternal and infant mortality, policymakers cannot design effective interventions. This gap highlights the broader issue of descriptive bias, where data is presented without sufficient interpretation or contextualisation.

6. Absence of Comparative Analysis

The lack of interstate and regional comparison is another major weakness of the Review. By presenting data in isolation, the document fails to provide a benchmark against which Meghalaya’s performance can be evaluated. Comparative analysis is essential for identifying relative strengths and weaknesses, as well as for learning from best practices in other states.

The absence of such analysis creates an impression of insularity, where development is assessed without reference to broader trends. This is particularly problematic in the context of the North-Eastern region, where states share similar challenges and opportunities. Without comparison, it is difficult to determine whether observed outcomes are the result of state-specific factors or broader regional dynamics.

From a policy perspective, this limitation reduces the utility of the Review as a tool for decision-making. Policymakers require not only data but also context, and the absence of comparative benchmarks makes it difficult to prioritise interventions or allocate resources effectively.

7. Silence on Poor Achievement Indices and the Politics of Omission

An equally significant limitation of the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 is its failure to engage critically with areas of poor performance across development indices. While the document presents a range of sectoral statistics, it avoids a sustained interrogation of domains where Meghalaya lags behind national or regional averages. This silence is not merely an analytical gap but reflects a deeper politics of omission, wherein uncomfortable indicators are either downplayed or presented without interpretative depth. Such an approach undermines the very purpose of a socio-economic review, which is to identify developmental bottlenecks and inform corrective policy action.

The absence of critical engagement with poor achievement indices is particularly problematic when viewed through the lens of social accountability. Development reporting is not simply a technical exercise; it is also a normative one that requires transparency and reflexivity. By failing to foreground areas of underperformance—whether in health outcomes, educational attainment, or employment generation—the Review limits its capacity to function as an instrument of public accountability. From the perspective of Doughnut Economics, this omission weakens the assessment of the social foundation, as it obscures the extent to which sections of the population remain below minimum thresholds of well-being.

Moreover, the reluctance to engage with negative outcomes reflects a broader institutional tendency to equate development reporting with administrative success. This conflation leads to a selective presentation of data, where achievements are highlighted while structural challenges are relegated to the margins. Such an approach not only diminishes the analytical credibility of the document but also constrains the scope for meaningful policy debate.

8. Exclusion of the Academic Community and the Limits of Bureaucratic Knowledge

The preparation of a socio-economic review in a state like Meghalaya, which possesses a rich and diverse academic community, presents a valuable opportunity for collaborative knowledge production. Universities, research institutions, and independent scholars in the state have contributed significantly to the understanding of issues such as tribal economies, environmental sustainability, and governance structures. However, the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 shows little evidence of engagement with this intellectual ecosystem.

This exclusion has important implications for both the quality and the orientation of the document. Academic research often brings theoretical depth, methodological rigor, and critical perspective, all of which are essential for moving beyond descriptive analysis. In contrast, a purely bureaucratic approach to knowledge production tends to prioritise standardised data collection and reporting, often at the expense of analytical innovation. The result is a document that is technically competent but conceptually limited.

The absence of academic engagement also reflects a missed opportunity to incorporate interdisciplinary perspectives into development analysis. Issues such as climate change, migration, and institutional dynamics require insights from multiple disciplines, including economics, sociology, political science, and environmental studies. By not leveraging the expertise available within the state, the Review reinforces a narrow and technocratic understanding of development.
From a broader perspective, this limitation points to the need for a more participatory model of knowledge production, where government agencies collaborate with academic institutions and civil society organisations. Such an approach would not only enhance the quality of analysis but also promote a more inclusive and reflexive form of governance.

9. Ecological Blindness and the Absence of Sustainability Analysis

One of the most critical shortcomings of the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 is its inadequate engagement with ecological sustainability. Meghalaya’s economy is deeply intertwined with its natural environment, with sectors such as agriculture, forestry, and mining playing a central role in livelihoods and economic activity. At the same time, the state faces significant environmental challenges, including deforestation, soil erosion, and the impacts of climate change.

Despite this context, the Review does not systematically integrate environmental considerations into its analysis. Natural resources are treated primarily as inputs to economic production, rather than as finite assets subject to ecological limits. This approach reflects a broader disconnect between economic reporting and environmental sustainability, which is particularly problematic in a resource-dependent state.

Within the framework of Doughnut Economics, this omission represents a failure to engage with the ecological ceiling. Sustainable development requires not only the achievement of social foundations but also the preservation of environmental systems that support life and livelihoods.
By neglecting this dimension, the Review risks endorsing development pathways that are unsustainable in the long term.

Furthermore, the absence of ecological analysis limits the document’s relevance in the context of global and national policy priorities, including climate action and sustainable development goals. As environmental concerns become increasingly central to development planning, the failure to integrate these issues into socio-economic reporting represents a significant gap.

10. Descriptive Bias and the Absence of Analytical Tools

At a methodological level, the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 is characterised by a strong descriptive bias. While the document provides extensive data across multiple sectors, it does not employ analytical tools that would enable a deeper understanding of underlying trends and relationships. There is little evidence of causal analysis, econometric modelling, or scenario-based forecasting, all of which are essential for informed policy-making.

This limitation reflects a broader issue in development reporting, where the emphasis on data collection is not matched by a corresponding investment in analytical capacity. As a result, socio-economic reviews often function as statistical compendia rather than as instruments of strategic planning. In the case of Meghalaya, this shortcoming is particularly significant given the complexity of the state’s development challenges.

The absence of analytical tools also limits the document’s ability to anticipate future trends and risks. In a rapidly changing socio-economic environment, policymakers require forward-looking insights that go beyond retrospective data. Without such insights, the Review’s contribution to policy formulation remains limited.

11. Reassessing the Purpose of Socio-Economic Reviews

The cumulative effect of the limitations discussed above raises a fundamental question about the purpose of the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025. If the document does not critically analyse development outcomes, incorporate institutional realities, or address sustainability concerns, its role as a policy instrument becomes highly questionable. Instead of functioning as a guide for informed decision-making, it appears to serve primarily as an administrative exercise in data compilation.

This raises broader concerns about the role of socio-economic reviews within the governance framework. Ideally, such documents should facilitate evidence-based policy-making by providing a clear and critical assessment of development challenges. However, when they are reduced to descriptive reporting, their utility becomes limited. This not only represents a missed opportunity but also raises questions about the allocation of resources and the effectiveness of existing processes.

From a normative perspective, the purpose of a socio-economic review should be to bridge the gap between data and policy, transforming information into actionable insight. Achieving this requires a shift from a narrow focus on enumeration to a more integrated approach that combines empirical analysis with theoretical understanding and institutional awareness.

12. Toward a Reimagined Framework for Development Reporting

Addressing the limitations of the Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 requires a fundamental rethinking of the approach to development reporting. One possible direction is the adoption of frameworks such as Doughnut Economics, which provide a holistic perspective on development by integrating social and ecological dimensions. Such frameworks can help move beyond the limitations of traditional growth-centric models and provide a more comprehensive basis for analysis.

In practical terms, this would involve several changes. First, socio-economic reviews should incorporate a broader set of indicators that capture both social well-being and environmental sustainability. Second, they should engage more actively with institutional dynamics, including the role of Autonomous District Councils and traditional governance systems. Third, they should adopt a comparative perspective, situating state-level performance within regional and national contexts.
Equally important is the need to involve a wider range of stakeholders in the preparation of such documents. Collaboration with academic institutions, civil society organisations, and local communities can enhance both the quality and the relevance of the analysis. By drawing on diverse sources of knowledge, socio-economic reviews can become more reflective of the complexities of development.

13. Conclusion

The Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025 illustrates the limitations of a traditional approach to development reporting that prioritises data compilation over analytical depth and conceptual clarity. While the document succeeds in providing a broad overview of sectoral trends, it fails to engage with the deeper questions that define development, including social equity, institutional effectiveness, and ecological sustainability.

Through the lens of Doughnut Economics, these shortcomings become particularly evident. The Review does not adequately assess whether the population is achieving minimum standards of well-being, nor does it consider the environmental limits within which economic activity must operate. The omission of key institutions, the lack of comparative analysis, and the exclusion of academic expertise further limit its analytical value.

Ultimately, the document raises important questions about the purpose and relevance of socio-economic reviews in contemporary governance. If such reviews are to serve as meaningful tools for policy-making, they must move beyond descriptive enumeration and embrace a more integrated and critical approach to development analysis. Until then, they risk remaining exercises in documentation rather than instruments of transformation.

Declaration of AI Use: AI assistance was used only for language refinement, editing, and improving clarity. The ideas, arguments, analysis, and final responsibility for the article remain entirely with the authors.

(Authors: Prof. (Dr.) Jos Chathukulam is former Professor, Sri Ramakrishna Hegde Chair on Decentralisation and Development, Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bengaluru, and currently Director, Centre for Rural Management (CRM), Kottayam, Kerala. Email: joschathukulam[at]gmail.com / Prof. (Dr.) A. M. Jose is Professor and Head, Amity School of Economics, Amity University Haryana, India. With over 42 years of academic experience, he specialises in Development Economics, Agricultural Economics, and Agribusiness Management. Email: amjose[at]ggn.amity.edu )

References

• Baruah, Sanjib. 2020. In the Name of the Nation: India and Its Northeast. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Drèze, Jean, and Amartya Sen. 2013. An Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Himanshu. 2019. “Reflections on Economic Surveys in India.” Economic and Political Weekly 54 (10).
• Meghalaya Socio-Economic Review 2025, Govt. of Meghalaya. https://des.megplanning.gov.in/documents/Meghalaya-Socio-Economic-Review-2025.pdf
• Raworth, Kate. 2017. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. London: Random House.
• Rockström, Johan, et al. 2009. “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Nature 461: 472–475.
• Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.