Amit Varma, writing at promising new The Indian Economy blog, points to a much needed takedown of an anti-market, left-wing OpEd by a Dr. Utsa Patnaik. As with many ideas of this sort, Dr. Patnaik starts with a rather broad, well-intentioned need / desire to save the poor –
THE ARGUMENTS for a universal, not targeted, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act as well as for a universal Public Distribution System (PDS) are far stronger than most people realise. Rural India is in deep and continuing distress.
National Employment Gaurantee? Universal Public Distribution? Eek. Someone’s been lifting lines from Orwell, Marx, and Rand . The fisking, authored by Aadisht Khanna, summarizes Dr Patnaik’s argument thusly –
* Rural India is facing an employment crisis
* This is because of the economic policies pursued in the past fifteen years.
* The proof of this is that people are eating much less grain.
* The assertion that people are eating less grain is borne out by data from the National Sample Survey, which measures consumption and expenditure across India.
Aadisht’s response? An important lesson in economics & statistics – not all products rise monotonically in consumption or production given increasing incomes & productivity –
There is a decline in rice and wheat consumption, and also in the consumption of dal… But at the same time, the consumption of other stuff has risen- milk, vegetables of all sorts, meat of all sorts (though fish has shown the most dramatic rise), and most notably eggs- the consumption of those has doubled.
And this suggests something that you would expect a Professor of Economics to know- the consumption pattern looks suspiciously like that of Giffen goods.
… What’s the classical example of Giffen goods used in economics textbooks? That when your income rises, you buy less bread and more meat- exactly what we see happening in rural India from 1988 to 2000.
Then again, I suppose that if your goal is to make the case for a “new deal for the rural poor” replete with a messianic role for left-wing econ professors, then perhaps statistical anomalies like Giffen goods are a bit of a godsend. Too bad for the poor – the bureaucracy and tax burden will have to grow until they go back to the past & eat more dal.
Vinod,
An interesting criticism of the column. I recognized Patnaik’s name from an Arundhati Roy column that I read earlier. It sums up the popular polemic for this sort of government intervention. How many times have we heard this old line!!!: rural malnutrition stems from an economic policy skewed towards export-driven growth and inadequate focus on distribution (which is a consequence of the market).
“Meanwhile, economists cheering from the pages of corporate newspapers inform us that the GDP growth rate is phenomenal, unprecedented. Shops are overflowing with consumer goods. Government storehouses are overflowing with foodgrain. Outside this circle of light, farmers steeped in debt are committing suicide in their hundreds. Reports of starvation and malnutrition come in from across the country. Yet the Government allowed 63 million tonnes of grain to rot in its granaries. 12 million tonnes were exported and sold at a subsidised price the Indian Government was not willing to offer the Indian poor. Utsa Patnaik, the well known agricultural economist, has calculated foodgrain availability and foodgrain absorption in India for nearly a century, based on official statistics. She calculates that in the period between the early 1990s and 2001, foodgrain absorption has dropped to levels lower than during the World War-II years, including during the Bengal Famine in which 3 million people died of starvation…
So dangerous levels of malnutrition and permanent hunger are the preferred model these days. 47 per cent of India’s children below three suffer from malnutrition, 46 per cent are stunted. Utsa Patnaik’s study reveals that about 40 per cent of the rural population in India has the same foodgrain absorption level as Sub-Saharan Africa.”
Not to mention the fact, that now that they are eating a more “Western” diet, those poor people will start getting the diseases of the West. Obesity, Cancer, Diabetes…..
re: western diet — I’ve heard repeatedly that Asians in the UK suffer much higher rates of diabetes and heart disease ANYWAY (quick google ref), that it’s a result of the fact that there’s not much fruit or vegetables in a typical Asian diet. A glance at a menu anywhere in Brick Lane would bear this out, but do Asians really eat that way at home, all grease and oil and meat? I haven’t heard of the rates for those diseases back on the subcontinent. Dr-to-be Bong Breaker, any clues? Are UK Asians eating more fish and chips, or is it mere wealth causing these health problems?
Not really. All that oil and grease isn’t a daily affair, usually reserved for an occassion/gathering/festival. Atleast as far as Indian diet is concerned.
The Public Distribution System has been in effect for a very, very long time (at least over 40 years). This system allows foodgrains to be sold in govt. shops at subsidized prices. It benefits all lower-income people (not just the rural poor).
The way it used to work was that everyone could get a Ration Card from the local govt. office, and using it one could buy a maximum amount of wheat/rice/sugar, etc. per month. Most lower-income people survived on this program.
You can call it socialist, Orwellian or whatever, but it was a life-saver (don’t know if it works the same now).
ah… beg to differ. I recently had an extended visit and eyeballed the cooking through the fiancee’s eyes – all that ghee, paneer, cream, whole milk adds up. white rice doesnt help either. take any dish – soaked in oil – a pulao serving for two has about a cup of oil- bhindi, byengan etc. are fried in oil – saag is not saag unless it is made in butter apparently – Tastiest stuff ever – O man… this makki roti and saag paneer I had in Pinjore – but man there’s a lot of miles I had to put in after that.
OK – maybe we move in different circles.
Some sobering statistics on India’s poverty from a ‘Growing up in Asia report‘.
“India has the largest number of poor children in Asia, with 80% of its 400m young severely deprived” “In India, 60% of all children were classed as “absolutely poor”, with almost half of all children under five malnourished”
In contrast to China
“China, the report said, had made “great strides in poverty reduction in recent years”.
Only 13m of its 380m child population were deprived, according to Plan’s report”.
India is NOT shining.
Yes… the situation is appalling. That being said – I’d rather not look at it “in perspective to China’s position”. Two reasons – first being that it’s an artificial and poor benchmark – second that I would be skeptical about statistics reported by and through those channels. Off topic – Maybe time’s have changed – but I remember this paper that used satellite imagery to estimate agricultural production and contrast the estimates against the “government projections”… This is a paper from the seventies or something like that … The US estimates were in sync, as were the Indian estimates, the Russian and Chinese governmental projections were significantly off.
another aside – Whatever is posted in these pages on the state of the onion here and elsewhere – the point’s not lost to me that at least we can do so at will.
UTSA = Unemployed, Targeted, Security-less Asians
Didn’t say there is no oil/grease. But not as much as what you get to eat outside.I don’t think most of us consume the kind of food that has a litres worth of oil floating on top.
Everyday food like dal, rice, chhunki methi/palak, ghhiya et al contains less ghee vs saag, dum aloo and the likes.
Usually, the amount of oil/meat consumed depends on what part of India/South Asia you are from .
should have read : I don’t think most of us consume that kind of food, that has a litres worth of oil floating on top, everyday
agreed. let’s get back on track – before we tangentify – the original discussion was on the rise of conspicuous consumption among Indians in India and abroad.
I would still contend that, at least in the hindi-punjabi region – Haryana, Punjab, Delhi and parts of UP – overindulgence in cream, ghee is the norm among the riche – nouveau, nouvelle and otherwise – I remember being in one restaurant and this twat ripping into the waiter about the chapatis not having ghee – and mouthing off about the restaurant lacking class etc. Anywwa
Not really. All that oil and grease isn’t a daily affair, usually reserved for an occassion/gathering/festival. Atleast as far as Indian diet is concerned
you should eat at my house then, northie food isn’t done right unless there’s ample oil/butter/ghee what have you. So says my mom. My dad only eats daal which has butter in it. When i was a kid, they’d throw butter on my rice to make it more palatable for me to eat. Bengan Boortha is pretty much eggplant and oil. Yet my parents insist I will get sick bcuz i eat meat on a daily basis. Now my dad has diabetes, mom’s BP is up, and thru controlled diet and exercise, my vitals are all 100% healthy. At first I thought it was just our house, but then going to my families houses, friends houses, all primarily north indian and muslim you see this is the same everywhere. The flipside is true for Southies…hardly any meat and less oils, but huge on the coconut items, and coconut contains a TON of cholesterol and fatty compounds. There are ways to make indian food healthy but most parents from the motherland would rather eat tatti than blasphemize their food w/ less oil,ghee butter. and don’t get me started on the mithai and halwa, my god.
that said i’ll eat my Chicken Makhni any damn time I can get my paws on it!
“… most parents from the motherland would rather eat tatti than blasphemize their food…”
That line just killed me 😀
re: western diet — I’ve heard repeatedly that Asians in the UK suffer much higher rates of diabetes and heart disease ANYWAY (quick google ref), that it’s a result of the fact that there’s not much fruit or vegetables in a typical Asian diet. A glance at a menu anywhere in Brick Lane would bear this out, but do Asians really eat that way at home, all grease and oil and meat?
if you read Why Some Like It Hot: Food, Genes, and Cultural Diversity, you will see different populations have been on different diets for a LONG TIME. the olive-oil saturated ‘cretan diet’ doesn’t do it for most non-cretans (who have severe stomach issues initially as their bile acids go crazy trying to break that much fat). we all know that native americans and many non-southern european populations (this includes people like the swedes, who have super-high-alcohol taxes to discourage drunkeness) have issues with alcohol. it seems that asians (including browns) get drunker on a small quantity of alcohol than a jew would. not only is alcholism heritable trait (some of the variation in the population is due to genes), but the response to alcohol varies by population. all this ties into issues relating to food, and how different populations have been through different selective regimes. readers might be interested in this post i wrote about food, genetics and populations.
Good Post !
Leave it to desis to turn any conversation to food. I thought the original idea was discussion on economics not culinary.
Anyway, I find that Vinod made a huge leap from disproving Dr. Patnaik’s claim about the effects of liberalization (Did you expect anything better from a JNU professor!) to the benefits of lower taxes. I know this serves his liberatarian cause but I do not see a clear relationship. I am one of those guys who never saw a straight line relationship between lower taxes and betterment of the common man. But having said that, I am not an economics afficionado. Probably for a more trained eye this is all very logical.
Grain is an inferior, possibly a giffen good in terms of direct consumption but not absorbtion. (absorbtion ‘should’ take into account grain fed to animals and livestock)
The op-ed in the Hindu seems to talking about grain absorbtion, if so, the inferior goods argument doesn’t work.
That said, I can’t find how Utsa calculated the stats and there may be other reasons for food grain absorbtion to drop.
This system allows foodgrains to be sold in govt. shops at subsidized prices. It benefits all lower-income people (not just the rural poor).
Flatly false. Subsidization props up inefficient industries and keeps prices high in the long run. It’s why the subcontinent has far less efficient grain and agriculture than other parts of the world.
You need to have economies of scale to have efficient agriculture. That results in sharp reductions in the price of various staples. That will benefit society at large and reduce malnutrition, but will also cause a lot of farmers to find another line of work (just as the US went from an agricultural to a manufacturing economy, and then an information economy).
It is funny to see people complain simultaneously about both the falling prices for nutritional staples and the fact that small farms are being put out of business. The latter event is a necessary condition for the former.
Some sobering statistics on India’s poverty
Since liberalization the malnutrition rate has dropped precipitously. One stat:
http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948528.htm
That is a RIDICULOUS rate of progress by any standard…so please, don’t complain about how capitalism hasn’t yet made everyone in India as rich as the Americans.
I have a feeling, though, that even if/when that happens, the usual suspects will move the goalposts and start bleating about “sustainability” and income inequality and whatnot. They certainly still do so in the US context, where the only question is whether you’re rich enough to afford one color TV or two…
Point: if you maintain that significant absolute levels of poverty still exist in the US, or if you maintain that material wealth is a bad thing, you can’t be taken seriously when you complain about the recent Indian economic liberalization. No matter what metric you use, capitalism has made India boom.
I’m truly amazed that anyone is still crazy enough to argue the point; compare North Korea and South Korea, East Germany and West Germany, Hong Kong and China, or Indian Americans and Indian nationals and you’ll see the difference. More statism = more poverty. Why is it that all the famines (USSR, NoKo, China, etc.) seem to occur in non-capitalist states, hmmm?
Capitalism may not have cured all of India’s ills yet, but anyone who argues for less economic liberalization and more statism is arguing for the starvation of millions.
Not to mention the fact, that now that they are eating a more “Western” diet, those poor people will start getting the diseases of the West. Obesity, Cancer, Diabetes…..
Hey, if India’s biggest problem is obesity — meaning TOO MUCH food — I’d consider that a big step up. Of course, some people will never be satisfied…
I am one of those guys who never saw a straight line relationship between lower taxes and betterment of the common man.
Mind if you give me a minute of your time?
Quick response: suppose you paid $1000 in taxes, and got an line item bill of exactly what that was spent on. Say $100 on defense, $50 on poverty, $500 on politician’s salaries, and so on.
Here’s the thing: you aren’t choosing how that money is spent. Some of the things on that list are things — like food or health care — that you could have chosen to buy for yourself. For many of those goods, you would get a better price and a better product than the one the government got you…because you know your situation, your tastes, and your needs.
In other words, if you got that tax bill, many people would compare it with the bills they voluntarily incur. And they would find that it was an inefficient use of resources…and if possible, they’d opt out of paying those taxes.
That’s really the key point. There’s a box on the tax form that you can fill in to send more $ to the government. At any time you have the choice of giving up any amount of your income to the government to spend as they see fit, hopefully on your behalf.
Most people don’t fill in that box, because most people know that they will allocate that money more efficiently for their own benefit than some distant third party.
GC, excellent comments. Do you blog anywhere?
gc my free market friend you omitted the scandinavian countries which have managed to combine state intervention, captialism without the massive inequalities and with a better quality of life then in lassire faire Britian.
The problems with diet etc are associated with Punjabis and the problems of having a high cal. diet that had a evolved for a rural lifestyle and super imposing that on a urban modern lifestyle.
GC, you’re stats rock and I love your economic thinking, please keep posting. I love these discussions.
I completely agree w/ you, until proven otherwise, capitalism is the best system we have ‘right now’…the resulting inefficiencies which many anti-capitalists claim are usually due to stupid political intervention which work against capitalistic principles. There is literally no reason for the US Steel Industry to exist anymore when Korea, Brazil and other countries have proven far more efficient at producing steel, yet Bush enacted tariffs to protect them. Likewise the airlines in this country which are pretty much propped up on federal money continuously…instead of forcing these airlines to consolidate and streamline, the US further propogates this outdated business model at the expense of high speed train lines which could easily service more parts of the nation efficiently for mass transit. I could go on, but I’m sure my blogging isn’t what my employer hired me for!
gc, I am glad that you are getting all these compliments.
Do you feel there is anything that can be considered a common good. If we stretch yur argument a little further no one should be forced to pay for anything. For example, if I feel I have nothing worth protecting or feel that I can protect my stuff should I be forced to pay for the police. What about a nation’s defense.
As much as the liberatarians want to deny it, the truth is we have something called common good. We must be careful about defining what we could and should consider common good. Unfortunately, progressive taxation is the best way for any government to raise revnues and use it for the common good . We should try and force democratic governments to improve their efficiencies but not give up on values like egalitarianism.
Have a nice day!
That is a RIDICULOUS rate of progress by any standard…so please, don’t complain about how capitalism hasn’t yet made everyone in India as rich as the Americans.
I am not complaining. I do support capitalism.
It benefits all lower-income people (not just the rural poor). …. ‘Flatly false. …. gc, i think the point being made by vivekj was that the ration shops are very often the only resort for people who’s resources and survival skills will not last through a period of economic shock while a free-market system evolves around them.
I like the idea of a free market as much as anyone else, but i’m afraid it’s a game that only some of us are allowed to play. What of the others ?.
Let’s assume that the government is making a transition to a free market. Would I, as advisor, advocate that the government apply ‘shock therapy’ overnight and wait for the Darwinian shakeout ?.
One of the few economists to actually have had this oportunity is Jeffrey Sachs, who advised the Russian (or maybe USSR?) government while the old economy was being dismantled. The experience has tempered his fervor for the market; his more recent work acknowledges the need for government action in many areas. I’d accord respect to the view of someone who has been through the wringer, and has the cojones for honest self-evaluation. At any rate, i’d consider it more tested – and therefore valuable – than the dogmatic pronouncements from the comfort of the armchair, backed by nothing more than the wonder of neat supply and demand curves and shaded areas of ‘dead weight loss’.
Just when economic theory seems to line up perfectly, i realize with a start that i’ve inevitably, in the insidious guise of ‘assumptions’, abstracted away human beings from consideration.
I also note a lack of prominent free market voices among those that actually spent some reasonable amount of time in administration – say the IAS – where the real extent of the problem is more apparent. Please spare me any sweeping generalization which taints all of them by association. From the few interactions i’ve had, they seem to have a fair share of very smart people who realize that they can make a contribution to an imperfect system. It must be galling to some of them to be dismissed as big government ‘babus’, the basis for which are often silly comparisons to very different circumstances.
One of the other posters mentioned Scandinavia. I’ve spent a little time in the region, and i can say that it works pretty well. Perhaps the key is that enough people give tacit approval to the ‘inefficiencies’ caused by subsidization. Well worth considering IMO.
Just to clarify, the link in my previous post does not advocate the ‘silly comparisons’, it is a response to such comparisons. Well worth reading.
midnighttoker, when my family used to buy from ration shops, I had to a) stand in long queues, b) for rice of inferiour quality, c) for quantity much much less than we would consume (because we were South Indian rice eaters in a land of chapati eaters) and d) which was never available. So everyone, including the poor had to buy from the open market at higher prices.
If the rice had been simply dumped into the open market, rice would have been available for everyone at low prices. But “free traders” could make a killing because the government withheld the rice for them at its godowns at its cost. So ration shops ended up hurting the poor.
Now you might say that the solution to this problem is to fix the PDS by reducing corruption… blah blah blah. But do you think it can be done overnight? The situation I am describing for you was in Bombay and not some remote village.
And you want ration shops to fill the gap in the short run while the market “evolves”? Hah! The effort required to fix the system is so much that more people will die from it while it is getting “fixed” than if you simply introduce market reforms at one shot.
gc my free market friend you omitted the scandinavian countries which have managed to combine state intervention, captialism without the massive inequalities and with a better quality of life then in lassire faire Britian.
A popular myth, but simply not true:
As for income inequality, whether it matters or not relative to absolute income is an issue of human envy. I’d rather have the highly unequal modern American society than a North Korean society of “equals” where the vast majority of individuals are at the starvation level. Absolute wealth matters a lot, and Sweden is much poorer in absolute terms than America.
But even if we consider income inequality, it is lower only in those Scandinavian countries which are ethnically homogeneous, like Finland; those which have taken in lots of Islamic immigrants, like Sweden, have seen their inequality numbers skyrocket.
also, the swedish model is predicated on high tax rates, not nationalization or control of the ‘commanding heights.’ last i checked in some ways becoming an entrepeneur is one way that swedes can become rich because of the tax rates on professionals are so high (business taxes aren’t necessarily as bad depending on the type and region of the country).
amit:
GC, excellent comments. Do you blog anywhere?
I used to blog at http://www.gnxp.com, but am trying (as you can see somewhat unsuccessfully) to kick the web surfing habit…
uncleji:
The problems with diet etc are associated with Punjabis and the problems of having a high cal. diet that had a evolved for a rural lifestyle and super imposing that on a urban modern lifestyle.
That’s true for all hunter gatherers. Still, I hope you can agree with me that a long life with plenty to eat is better than one marked by starvation. Obesity is a good problem to have relative to the alternatives.
madarchod:
There is literally no reason for the US Steel Industry to exist anymore when Korea, Brazil and other countries have proven far more efficient at producing steel, yet Bush enacted tariffs to protect them. Likewise the airlines in this country which are pretty much propped up on federal money continuously …this outdated business model at the expense of high speed train lines which could easily service more parts of the nation efficiently for mass transit
Halfway agree. In order:
1) steel tariffs were a ridiculous political ploy for votes in PA and have now been overturned by the WTO
2) Airlines should not be subsidized — Jet Blue and various discount airlines show that w/o structurally high costs (lazy unions, etc.) you can kick ass and make a huge profit. Delta, etc. need to declare bankruptcy without fedgov subsidy.
3) On the other hand, with respect to high speed trains, I think you may not realize the extent to which Amtrak is a fedgov boondoggle:
The only reason people are entertaining the idea of trains rather than planes (the former are much slower for long distance travel) is because of our ludicrous security regime at the airport.
Japan has had a lot of success with the bullet trains (or so I hear), but they are a much smaller country. If the whole US was as urbanized as NYC or London or Japan, trains might be more cost effective.
Do you feel there is anything that can be considered a common good… What about a nation’s defense.
I fully agree that there is such a thing as the common good, and am not an ideological libertarian. There are certain obvious functions the govt. can provide and the market cannot — national defense, border security, and police and fire service among them.
More controversially, there are certain nonzero sum actions the govt. can take — mild forms of externality regulation (pollution controls), and funding for not-immmediately-applicable scientific research — that redress some kinds of market failures. Certain public infrastructure projects are also in the nonzero sum class, like the interstate highway system or the early internet. Many of these things (sci. research, highway, internet, GPS, etc.) came out of military investments initially, which means that even a hardcore minarchist would be hard pressed to object to them.
These are quite distinct from the worst kind of government action, which is simple redistribution. This is zero-sum, as opposed to the nonzero sum action above. It encourages a whole class of leechers who do nothing but take money from Peter to give to Paul and charge a pretty penny for the service. Social Security is perhaps the most ridiculous and infamous of these shenanigans…its advocates can never make clear whether or not it’s supposed to be in your self interest OR whether it’s supposed to be a charity program for the elderly.
In the former case I’d rather invest that money, thankyouverymuch, while in the latter case I know that I’d rather take care of my own grandma and have you take care of yours.
I like the idea of a free market as much as anyone else, but i’m afraid it’s a game that only some of us are allowed to play.
Well, a billion plus Chinese and a few hundred million more Japanese, Europeans, and Americans can play fairly well.
Amy Chua-ish issues notwithstanding, I see no reason to advocate socialism in India just because some people will have a hard time during the transition. The thing is that many more people will have a hard time without the transition.
Ironically, those who style themselves as empathetic to the transition costs do not note that it takes far more empathy to sympathize with the invisible victims. The farmer who’s driven out of business because he can’t match the low corn price of the conglomerate is one visible victim, but subsidizing him means taking cheap food out of the mouths of thousands of invisible victims.
In short, to stop some people from participating in “sink or swim” capitalism, you will be pushing a lot of other people under the water. It’s like a military organization where someone doesn’t pull his weight — it’s everyone else who has to pay the price.
I travelled by train when I was visiting the US, while going from LA to san Diego. And I was shocked at how easily I got the ticket, and how empty the train was. I walked around the train a bit and calculated that it was filled approximately only 20%. And this was on a friday evening, the start of a weekend, when people would be more likely to travel. I remember wondering then, how does Amtrak manage to make money? The tickets were quite cheap as well, in fact a bit cheaper than the last minute fare on Greyhound.
Does America really need trains? And how is Greyhound doing
I also note a lack of prominent free market voices among those that actually spent some reasonable amount of time in administration – say the IAS – where the real extent of the problem is more apparent.
The IAS is the real extent of the problem. Sorry if that’s a sweeping generalization, but of course they will come up with various excuses to preserve their sinecures…
As for the Russian debacle, Sachs has moved from one kind of idiocy to another (this 100 billion to Africa nonsense). I wouldn’t call him the most credible economic voice.
Try Milton Friedman, or most mainstream trade economists…not to mention every other example you leave out, including China, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and the Eastern European tigers — Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
Russia’s a unique case. But clearly it was not market reforms that did it in, as satellite former USSR republics have been booming in the world market. You’re picking out the one example of poorly done reform without acknowledging that every other country that’s made the transition — including former USSR republics — has improved its standard of living in the process.
I should also note that the wealthiest countries in South America are Chile and Argentina…the former of which was governed by that leftist bete noire Pinochet. The comparison to another Latin American dictator (Castro) is apropos; both were tyrants, but only Castro destroyed his country’s economy. As the Chicago Boys were also involved in Chile, you need to give some credit where it’s due…
I can’t remember where I read this- probably the Wikipedia article- but I recall that Amtrak has only one profitable service- the east coast high speed commuter trains (NYC-Washington DC if I recall correctly). Even those are making only operational profits- they aren’t making enough money to cover the cost of their trains.
gc,
If we quit comparing apples to oranges, the only reasonable comparisons to the India are China and Russia, with pre-existing State meddling in too many areas beyond the critical.
Russia aside, what is your opinion on how the Chinese experiment can be repeated in India ?. Why would the Communist Party apparatus be any better than the IAS at implementing change?. Surely in both those organizations there are smart people who will try and work with what exists.
If the difference is that China had Deng Xiaoping using his Peoples Army driven clout to force through reform, would that be your choice for implementing such reform in India ? Incidentally i’ve heard some extreme skepticism expressed about economic numbers out of China – from one of your ‘Chicago Boys’.
Instead of painting with broad strokes, maybe a little analysis of why government hasn’t delivered is in order. The Raj-inherited mentality where information about the true functioning of government is hidden in a meaningful way from citizens, leads to lack of accountability. When this changes then the pressure from recent media proliferation (before consolidation leads to Doordarshan style pandering) is our best bet to improve things.
I don’t know if this will move things along quick enough for you, but if the alternative is Death squads, like in Chile and Argentina – now thats an economic example to look up to, the Chapter 11 of South America !!! – then i know what i’d choose.
Ravi Kiran, I too stood a few times in those lines in Bombay, maybe we were in the same lines, wearing chaddis and sour expressions !!! In today’s situations of grain surpluses, there is little argument for the government being in any form of grain distribution, but that wasnt always the case. Maybe – looking at it in a rice-bowl half full kind of way – they kept enough people fed, so we were spared Revolution leading to Cultural Revolutions and Tiannenmen Squares.
While we are far from perfect, and should rightly be ashamed of the poverty that persists, the complex reality of implementing anything in India will often force us to accept imperfect solutions for a while.