A fascinating comparison of competing economic models for the Indian context is presented in a recent NYTimes article, entitled "Rival Economists in Public Battle Over Cure for India's Poverty." The term "Social Infrastucture" was utlized by one of the key proponents for increased (and improved) governmental spending on the poor, Amartya Sen. Sen notes that this social infrastucture is just as important as physical infrastructure, refuting alternative economic views on the role of the state in providing services to the most marginalized. What is playing out in India regarding the role of the state in providing effective governmental services (namely: education), and its strong failings in this critical regard will be reprocussions throughout the developing world, in terms of social justice and human rights. The struggle remains between the active withdrawl of the state, the propogation of public-private partnerships, and the efforts to simply circumnavigate actual, meaningful responsiveness and governmental initiative in favor of market-led solutions, which will never benefit the truly marginalized in any society, let alone a society without semblance of basic social safety nets. How can effective, active, and responsive state institutions be developed in the lack of any meaningful state committment? And how can the most marginalized, children, continue to not pay the price for these broader macro-level policy failings?