Is india achieving its potential? In the year to the third quarter of 2023, the country grew at a blistering rate of 8.4%. Over the next half-decade it is expected to expand at 6.5% a year, which would make it the world’s fastest-growing big economy. So far, so good. The problem, as critics point out, is that China, Japan and South Korea all expanded at 10% or so a year during their periods of rapid growth. Part of the reason for India’s less impressive figures is a slowdown in globalisation. But a new book by Karthik Muralidharan of the University of California, San Diego, called “Accelerating India’s Development”, argues that the crucial barrier to faster development is a lack of “state capacity”.
MORE EXPECTATIONS THAN CAPACITY
Mr Muralidharan describes this concept as the “effectiveness” of government. Throwing money at a state lacking capacity is like adding fuel to a car near a breakdown: it won’t get you very far. Currently, the Indian state succeeds when on “mission mode”, achieving clearly defined goals. In April it should pull off the largest democratic exercise in history, as voters pick a prime minister. At the same time, it struggles with mundane, everyday aspects of governance, such as education and health. Three in five rural children in the fifth year of school cannot read at a second-year level—and in the past five years the failure rate has only worsened.
Part of the issue is the precociousness of Indian democracy. The franchise became universal in 1950, when the country was mostly impoverished. Citizens demanded that the state met their basic needs well before it had the money or capacity to do so. India launched its food-security programme in the 1960s, for instance, when it was a fifteenth as rich per person as America was when it launched its own such programme in the 1930s. This set a pattern: the Indian state does a lot, but little well.
In his 800-page tome, Mr Muralidharan lays out fixes. The book is crammed with details about how the Indian system works and could be improved. Three ideas stand out. They concern how the state should manage people, use technology and improve its federal system. And they hold lessons for other governments.
PROBLEMS OF GOVERNENCE
VACANT POSTS
Since 2002, when Mr Muralidharan was a graduate student, he has been conducting surveys on absentee rates. It turns out that teachers skip school perhaps as often as pupils: they are absent 20-30% of the time. The problem is not pay. In 2017 a study by Rohini Pande of Yale University found that across 33 countries, India offered the second-highest wage premium to public-sector employees. Rather, the problem appears to be governance. School supervisory positions have ultra-high vacancy rates of 20-40%. Mr Muralidharan calculates that filling such roles would be ten times more cost-effective than hiring more teachers.
FREQUENT TRANSFERS
Such problems reflect a strange approach to civil-service management. About 1m Indians apply each year for about 1,000 slots, making it one of the most selective bureaucracies in history. Yet India has just 16 public employees per 1,000 people, one of the lowest ratios in the world. Indian officials also hop from position to position across various different tiers of government, moving every 15 months on average. As a recent retiree notes, this means that they have far too little time to develop proper expertise in any one area. Therefore problems go unresolved.
POOR DATA
Better data would help. It should not take an academic survey to ascertain rates of teacher absenteeism. Official numbers on educational outcomes paint a far rosier picture than those collected by independent organisations. Schools and low-level bureaucrats have incentives to cheat. As such, Mr Muralidharan suggests digital data collection, audits and stiffer accountability.
CORRUPTION
A running theme throughout the book is the need to pay attention to India’s federal structure. The country has 28 hugely diverse states, 15 of which are big enough to be in the top fifth of the world’s countries by population. Historically, Indian politicians have fallen prey to cycles of corruption in which companies bribe leaders in exchange for favours, with leaders then using the money to fund expensive campaigns that involve, in effect, bribing voters. In some states, this cycle is starting to break down. Campaigns promising to get stuff done are precisely what propelled Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, to fame when he ran the state of Gujarat.
POOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LESS DECENTRALIZATION
Progress in the “third tier” of government, which is made up of villages, towns and cities, has been less impressive, however. Deng Xiaoping, China’s leader from 1978 to 1989, introduced reforms that rewarded local officials for their economic performance. India could use something similar, especially if states granted their local authorities more resources and power. Of the 18 similar countries looked at by Mr Muralidharan, India was the least decentralised when it came to fiscal affairs. Just 3% of state spending happens at a local level, compared with 51% in China. In 2000 three Indian states—Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh—were split in two. So was Andhra Pradesh in 2014. All four splits have led to faster economic growth.
There is much else in Mr Muralidharan’s book. But changes to personnel, data and federalism would together represent the beginnings of a reform package that could do wonders for India’s governance, and therefore its growth. Indeed, the sheer variation in performance across India’s cities and states demonstrates the potential benefits. Karnataka, a large and reasonably well-run state, is six times richer per person than Bihar, the country’s poorest state—making India one of the world’s most geographically unequal countries. Internal migration is relatively rare, which means that for incomes to grow faster, poor states will have to get their act together. The changes outlined by Mr Muralidharan will be tough to enact, but not impossible. And if some states make the leap, they may inspire others to follow their example.
The power of governments, compared to what the big tech firms possess, is trivial. We are, in many ways, owned by the Mark Zuckerbergs and Jeff Bezoses of the world
We are witnessing a discernible decline in the strength of democracy as a social and political system not only in India but also the world over. What is surprising is the fact that the erosion is not the effect of external shocks, like military coups or foreign aggressions, but rather through the damages wrought by elected governments. The cancer lies within. It is true that democratic systems are not perfectly defined, the observed systems vary from country to country, and they change in different ways over time. However, there is an ensemble of features that is common to most versions. None of the features taken in isolation defines democracy, but their collective presence provides the essential structure.
The most basic among these is the ability of citizens to exercise some sort of franchise by which they can choose their government and, more so, to change governments by voting politicians out of power. The second feature ensures that those elected to rule the country do not misuse the exercise of power. This is guaranteed through constitutionally-granted checks and balances that include political rights, civil liberties, and a set of neutral institutions that can restrict governmental arbitrariness, like courts of law, or other institutions like a free media, or, as in some countries, a neutral Election Commission. Above all, the ability to voice opinions that are critical of the government is central to the set of freedoms and rights that a citizen enjoys.
Each of these features is being compromised. Elections are hardly fair and free, with false propaganda, ballot-box tampering, and big-money campaigns making the individual’s vote worthless. Social media, along with the commercial electronic media, has made us tribal to the extent that we seek constant validation and comfort by being with people like us — people who think, behave and have lifestyles similar to ours. Hence, societies have become aggressively polarised. Social media gives one the courage of numbers and the safety of crowds. Each tribe wishes to have the other extinguished decisively and rapidly. The tribe in power is usually the groups from the far-Right of the political spectrum. A longish second half of the twentieth century had seen the rise of a liberal democratic polity, which also contributed to its own decay.
Now, in the twenty-first century, the far-Right is the more radical voice of change that gains support. The first act of governance, when these tribes enter the throne room of power, is to begin stifling the voices of dissent. Gradually, rights are curbed and civil liberties trodden over. All these can be done without altering the rulebook. It is the de facto world that changes sharply. Neutral institutions are purchased or threatened into servility. All these changes take place without much fanfare or explicit changes in laws and regulations. Existing rules are simply disregarded and flouted. Every feature that defines the broad contours of democracy gets distorted. The long arm of the State begins to crawl and extend to all and sundry — citizens, institutions, political Opposition, internal critics. This is necessary to ensure that any dissent or organised opposition beyond the ballot box is made dangerous and well-nigh impossible.
In the world of fake news and falsities, the charisma that authoritarian rulers enjoy is actually ephemeral. Big business rules the world of illiberal democracies, not the authoritarian leaders who hog the headlines. The de facto transitions in the features of democracy are linked to the vast changes that are happening in the structure of capitalism. The world of manufacturing and factory technologies is far less important now compared to the world of ideas, knowledge, and algorithms — the nebulous clouds of cyberspace. This is the world of high technology beyond the information and communications revolution. The explosion in data has given these large companies unprecedented power to control, manipulate, and influence human behaviour as never before. The power of governments, compared to what the big tech firms possess, is trivial. We are, in many ways, owned by the Mark Zuckerbergs and Jeff Bezoses of the world.
Industrial capitalism is giving way to a new type of feudalism. The Industrial Revolution emerged from the world of European feudalism where land was the primary asset and rent extracted from it was the principal source of income. This gave way to machines and manufactured capital as the main assets from which income flowed. Profits became the main source of income and the working class remained stable and with a reasonably secure wage. The new world emerging has data and information as capital and the income earned is a rent and not profit as normally understood. Some scholars have begun to refer to this as cloud rent in the age of the internet. When we post on Facebook, we are not working for Zuckerberg and he pays us no wages, but our post enhances his capital — data. This is not the wage labour to capital nexus of capitalism. Firms like Google, Meta, Apple or Amazon do not have workers in the sense that twentieth-century firms had. In those days, large firms used to have payroll figures that were 80%-85% of their top-line earnings. The big techs of today spend something like 1%-2% as wages.
This trend has a number of implications. The unprecedented concentration of wealth and income is not distributed through taxes and subsidies. The wealth is not used in widening the capital base or the sources of livelihoods. The old-style labour force with unions and collectives has given way to informal work and the unorganised gig economy. The tech giants of the world have way more power than any government in their ability to control mass behaviour. Indeed, despite the far-Right’s usual ideological arsenal of nationalist identity, the final validator of one’s identity remains the tech companies in cyberspace. Without Google or Apple confirming our identities, we are half a human being. If there is any long-drawn struggle in the transition to this new form of economic feudalism, it will be between the big tech companies and governments.
These captains of industry, to retain their control over wealth, need to create social polarisation and as well as the ability to reproduce the schism over time. The political pawns of these companies appear as the illusory political masters of the new order. They are mere actors strutting on stage, their dance choreographed from behind the scenes. It is a kind of feudalism because the source of earnings is a form of economic rent and the formal features of freedom associated with capitalism are no longer relevant. There is a tiny elite — the super-rich — who control governments, control our beliefs, influence our behaviour, and supply us with a stream of illusions. Religion and politics merge. Control is the key, and dissent has dangerous consequences. As far as the proverbial democracy’s man-on-the-street is concerned, there is a variety of goods — real and virtual — to choose from. He is socially disconnected, rather awkward in the real world, completely helpless without smart devices, and awestruck by the spectacular show of intelligent machines. All of us are on a high-tech ride to a distant past.
Anup Sinha is former Professor of Economics, IIM Calcutta
“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and [destroys] itself. . .It is in vain to Say that Democracy is … less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty.”
Letter from John Adams to John Taylor, December 1814
In every age there is a set of beliefs that are elevated to a sacred status and questioning them is deemed heretical. For centuries it was the dogmas of Christianity that possessed this status, today it is the dogma of the democratic state. Democracy, as currently practiced, is the greatest form of government and anyone who denies this commits blasphemy – or so we are taught. But just as much of the Christian dogma was a veil to protect the power of the Church, the same can be said about democracy. Democracy, with its political campaigns, elections, and the illusion of rule by the people, is a veil behind which politicians and bureaucrats parasitically enrich themselves while imposing their corrupt vision of society on the rest of us. In this video we explore some of the fatal flaws of modern democracy and explain how instead of promoting social flourishing, it has given rise to a form of soft totalitarianism.
“Conceived as the foundation of liberty, modern democracy paves the way for tyranny. Born for the purpose of standing as a bulwark against Power, it ends by providing Power with the finest soil it has ever had in which to spread itself over the social field.”
Bertrand de Jouvenel, On Power
There are many institutions that are necessary for a free and prosperous society; these include free markets, the division of labour, a rule of law that promotes order and trust, strong families, sound money, a school system that educates instead of indoctrinates, and a robust media that pursues the truth instead of spreading propaganda. If a democracy preserves these institutions, then one can claim that it is a form of political organization conducive to social harmony. But if a democracy continually produces governments that destroy these institutions, then the value of democracy must be questioned. Across the globe, the governments of most democracies are doing the latter – from the family unit, to schooling, the media, free markets, sound money, or the rule of law, politicians and bureaucrats are actively destroying, or at least severely corrupting, these institutions. Why is this? What are the flaws of modern-day democracies that are leading it to manifest such corrupt governments?
To answer this question, we must distinguish between two types of democracy: direct democracy and indirect democracy. A direct democracy involves citizens casting votes on specific issues, usually by means of a referendum. In a direct democracy majority rules. Whether one views this form of political organization in a positive or negative light will usually depend on if one belongs to the majority or minority. Those in the majority tend to believe that direct democracy is a good system as it leads to the satisfaction of their wants, while those in the minority often feel that direct democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the masses. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch,” Benjamin Franklin famously remarked. While the 19th century British politician Auberon Herbert had this to say concerning the morality of a direct democracy:
“Five men are in a room. Because three men take one view and two another, have the three men any moral right to enforce their view on the other two men? What magical power comes over the three men that because they are one more in number than the two men, therefore they suddenly become possessors of the minds and bodies of these others? As long as they were two to two, so long we supposed each man remained master of his own mind and body; but from the moment that another man, acting Heaven only knows from what motives, has joined himself to one party or the other, that party has become straightaway possessed of the souls and bodies of the other party. Was there ever such a degrading and indefensible superstition?”
Auberon Herbert, The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State
A tyranny of the masses, however, is not the most serious threat facing the West as we live in indirect democracies which render most people politically impotent and the power of the masses relatively negligible. In an indirect, or representational democracy, we vote for politicians who are then, in theory, supposed to represent our interests. But how representational democracy should work in theory, is not how it works in practice. In almost all democratic countries a small number of political candidates are preselected by a handful of political parties that monopolize each country’s political system and from these candidates we vote for the ones we prefer, or at least dislike the least. Once elected, far from being forced to represent the interests of the majority, politicians can, and frequently do, serve their own interests. Or as Frank Karsten and Karel Beckman note in their book Beyond Democracy:
“It is not ‘the will of the people’, but the will of politicians – prompted by groups of professional lobbyists, interest groups and activists – that reigns in a democracy.”
Frank Karsten and Karel Beckman, Beyond Democracy
Many will counter that a benefit of an indirect democracy is that we can vote out the corrupt politicians who fail to serve us. The problem, however, is that modern democracies rarely produce honest and ethical political candidates. Each time one corrupt politician is voted out of office, he or she is replaced by another corrupt politician who merely serves different special interest groups. Furthermore, nation states have grown so large that most of the state actors who rule over us and implement the policies that affect us on a day-to-day basis are bureaucrats who are not subject to popular elections.
And herein lies perhaps the most serious flaw of modern democracies – the democratic process seems incapable of preventing the worst from rising to the top in government. There are several factors that can account for this: Firstly, there is the corrupting nature of power.
“Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Or as Mikhail Bakunin wrote:
“However democratic may be their feelings and their intentions, once [politicians] achieve the elevation of office they can only view society in the same ways a schoolmaster views his pupils, and between pupils and masters equality cannot exist. On one side there is the feeling of a superiority that is inevitably provoked by a position of superiority; on the other side, there is a sense of inferiority which follows from the superiority of the teacher. . . Who-ever talks of political power talks of domination; but where domination exists there is inevitably a somewhat large section of society that is dominated. . .This is the eternal history of political power. . .”
Mikhail Bakunin, The Illusion of Universal Suffrage
Another factor that can account for the moral corruption of politicians is that like a moth to flame, the most ruthless and power-hungry among us are attracted to state power. Those who enter the game of politics are often the very individuals who we least want to rule over us, or as Frank Herbert wrote:
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.”
Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
Another explanation for why the worst rise to the top in modern politics is because Machiavellian, narcissistic, and sociopathic character traits improve one’s chance of winning a political election or getting promoted to the position of a high-level bureaucrat. Or as the philosopher Hans Hermann Hoppe explains:
“. . . the selection of state rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for harmless or decent persons to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position not owing to their status as natural aristocrats, as feudal kings once did . . .but as a result of their capacity as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of state government.”
Hans Hermann Hoppe, From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy
Once in power these demagogues are effectively shielded from the wrath of the citizenry due to a mirage that is created by the dogma of democracy. Most people believe that in a democracy it is we the people that rule, and that as rulers we are collectively to blame for the corruption, ineptitude, and immorality of our government. This belief overlooks the fact that most of us have no impact on the actions of politicians and it diverts responsibility away from the politicians and bureaucrats who are responsible for the policies that are destroying society. Furthermore, when it is believed that we the people rule, our resistance toward the dangerous growth of state power is weakened, or as Hoppe explains:
“Under democracy the distinction between the rulers and the ruled becomes blurred. The illusion even arises that the distinction no longer exists: that with democratic government no one is ruled by anyone, but everyone instead rules himself. Accordingly, public resistance against government power is systematically weakened.”
Hans Hermann Hoppe, From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy
This weakened resistance to the growth of state power has created a fertile ground for the emergence of totalitarian rule across the West. Many will counter that the democratic West is not at all like the totalitarian countries of the past, be it Soviet Russia, Communist China, Nazi Germany, Cuba, or North Korea. These countries centralized power and controlled the lives of their citizens to a degree never seen in history and to a level which far exceeds the experience of the modern West. But the centralization of government power in Western democracies, differs only in degree to that seen in the totalitarian countries of the 20th century. Western democracies are what can be called soft totalitarian states in contrast to the more brutal manifestations of totalitarianism past. In 1835 Alexis de Tocqueville foresaw the rise of soft totalitarianism in Western democracies and described it in his great work Democracy in America:
“After having…taken each individual one by one into its powerful hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces action, but it constantly opposes your acting…it hinders, it represses, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America
Prior to the rise of this soft totalitarianism, social relations were dominated by a multiplicity of different institutions and associations which were independent of government – such as markets, guilds, churches, private hospitals, universities, fraternities, charities, monasteries, and most importantly the “primal community of the family”. These independent associations and institutions, while providing great societal benefits, also acted as barriers to the expansion of government power. The destruction and replacement of these more diverse forms of community with relationships between the individual and the state, which began in the West in the 20th century and continues to this day, was a crucial step in the rise of governments who hide their totalitarian nature behind the veil of the democratic ideal. Or as Robert Nisbet wrote in The Quest for Community:
“It is not the extermination of individuals that is ultimately desired by totalitarian rulers. . . What is desired is the extermination of those social relationships which, by their autonomous existence, must always constitute a barrier to the achievement of the absolute political community. The prime object of totalitarian government thus becomes the incessant destruction of all evidence of spontaneous, autonomous association…To destroy or diminish the reality of the smaller areas of society, to abolish or restrict the range of cultural alternatives offered to individuals. . . is to destroy in time the roots of the will to resist despotism in its large forms.”
Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community
In places like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia the destruction of institutions independent of the state was done quite rapidly and with the use of violence. The same process has been occurring in Western democracies, but at a slower pace and instead of violence, these alternative institutions are crippled with the use of propaganda, educational indoctrination, laws, regulations, and bureaucratic red tape. But no matter how totalitarianism emerges the result is always the same. Citizens becomes subjects, the state becomes the master, and even if we are still granted the right to vote, we are enslaved nonetheless, or as Lysander Spooner wrote:
“A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.”
Lysander Spooner, The Constitution of No Authority
If our democracies cannot prevent the worst from rising to the top and if they cannot protect us from the rise of a soft totalitarianism, then democracy, as currently practiced, is a failed institutions and alternative forms of political organization must be explored and openly debated. Some may continue to hold out hope that a political saviour will emerge, overcome all the corrupting influences of the state, and return society to a path of peace and prosperity. This, however, is to gamble with the future of society. For as we wait for our saviour, who may never emerge, the state will continue to grow more and more burdensome, and then slowly at first, but ever more rapidly, our societies will deteriorate into the hellish conditions that characterize all totalitarian nations, for as James Kalb noted:
“If all social order becomes dependent on the administrative state, when that becomes terminally corrupt and non-functional everything goes.”
Any form of government or societal structure is only as “good” as the people who make up that body, whether it is based in capitalism, communism, socialism or totalitarianism. In these cases, I would define “good” as something that works well for the benefit of those involved. Given the vast complexities of the interactions of individuals within those structures, as well as the complexities of each of the individuals themselves, creating a societal situation that is “good” for all is an immense, if not impossible, task. Since the government of the United States of America was built on the ideal of it being a self-governing nation based on the premise that all men are created equal and that it is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, it reflects the characteristics of the people who are both the governing and the governed. Because human beings are always in the process of living (hopefully), which involves both expected and unexpected events and the necessary decisions and actions regarding those events, every moment represents a new frontier, of sorts, that people must face with either the tools that they have created in moments passed or new tools created in order face the new events. Since all of this is usually a venture into the unknown, mistakes are easily made and undesired consequences may be encountered. This is always a challenge to our government. “We the people” are only human, after all, and because it is essential for us to have the ability to move beyond our mistakes, we must be able to learn from those mistakes and, in order to not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” when addressing those responsible for the mistakes, we must be able to forgive those people. To be able to forgive, we must also love and respect and have compassion for one another. This is not an easy task. For any form of self-government to function for the good of all involved, all who are involved must, in some way, work for the good of all who are involved. When factions of those governed do not seek to work harmoniously with others for the good of all involved, then that government will fail in its quest unless it can somehow bring those recalcitrant factions into alignment with rest of those who are governed. This action will then infringe the rights of freedom of action of that “recalcitrant” faction and that faction will see itself as being repressed. This is the crux of the conundrum facing any form of self-government. In a totalitarian state, the freedoms of the “recalcitrant” faction do not matter and that faction can easily be either suppressed or destroyed, depending on the whim of the government. Under a form of self-government dedicated to working for the greater good, the concerns of that out-of-step faction must be taken into consideration and addressed with respect and compassion. Only then will things be able to be sorted out. Without mutual respect, compassion, consideration, trust and, yes, love, self-government, whether based on democratic or republican ideals, becomes an impossibility. It is only by conquering our own minds, each one of us, and involving ourselves respectfully with one another in our societal interactions, that we will ever develop a form of government that actually works to the benefit of all involved. “Love is my religion.” -Ziggy Marley “We got to let love rule.” -Lenny Kravitz
Imagine you're judging different systems or arrangements. To decide which one is "fair" or "just," you need to consider certain information. This information is the informational basis of justice.
Different theories of justice use different information:
Utilitarianism: Only cares about individual happiness (utilities). The "best" system is the one that makes the most people happy overall.
Other theories: Consider other things like freedoms, opportunities, resources, or rights. They also have different ways of combining this information to decide what's fair.
Key points:
Each theory picks specific things to focus on (relevant personal features).
They then decide how to combine this information (summing happiness, prioritizing equality, etc.).
Different theories lead to different ideas of "fairness" because they use different information.
Think of it like making a cake:
Each theory has its own recipe (informational basis).
They use different ingredients (relevant features) and mixing methods (combining characteristics).
The final cake (judgement of justice) will taste different depending on the recipe!
John Rawls proposed a theory of justice called "Justice as Fairness." Here's a breakdown in simpler terms:
Imagine everyone starts equally, unaware of their future social position. In this "original position," people would choose how society should be organized to be fair for everyone.
Rawls suggests two main principles:
Everyone gets the same basic freedoms (like speech, religion).
Social and economic differences are okay, but only if:
Everyone has a fair chance to succeed (equal opportunity).
The worst-off people benefit the most from these differences.
Think of it like setting up a game:
Everyone starts on the same line (original position).
You agree on rules (principles) to make the game fair for everyone, even if people end up in different places later.
Rawls's rules focus on everyone having basic freedoms and ensuring the worst-off benefit from any inequalities.
This theory is influential because:
It considers fairness from everyone's perspective, not just the powerful.
It allows for some inequality as long as everyone has a chance and the worst-off benefit.
Remember: This is a simplified explanation of a complex theory. There are many nuances and criticisms of Rawls's ideas.
theory of justice was "a political conception of justice," meaning it focuses on fairness within a society, especially its institutions like government, economy, and social structures.
Here are two key points about this "political" aspect:
1. Subject matter:
It deals with specific institutions, not general morality or philosophy.
This doesn't necessarily involve any specific principle, just the focus on these institutions.
2. Tolerance in a democracy:
It respects people's diverse personal beliefs and philosophies.
It aims to find common ground for justice principles everyone can agree on, regardless of their individual views.
Important note:
While Rawls emphasized tolerance, there might be situations where even within a political sphere, certain choices about institutions involve important issues of justice and fairness.
In simpler terms, Rawls wanted his theory to be practical and applicable to real-world societies, considering both fairness and diverse personal views. He believed this was crucial for a stable and just democracy.
John Rawls argued that his theory of justice was "a political conception of justice," meaning it focuses on fairness within a society, especially its institutions like government, economy, and social structures.
Here are two key points about this "political" aspect:
1. Subject matter:
It deals with specific institutions, not general morality or philosophy.
This doesn't necessarily involve any specific principle, just the focus on these institutions.
2. Tolerance in a democracy:
It respects people's diverse personal beliefs and philosophies.
It aims to find common ground for justice principles everyone can agree on, regardless of their individual views.
Important note:
While Rawls emphasized tolerance, there might be situations where even within a political sphere, certain choices about institutions involve important issues of justice and fairness.
In simpler terms, Rawls wanted his theory to be practical and applicable to real-world societies, considering both fairness and diverse personal views. He believed this was crucial for a stable and just democracy.
Imagine you want to achieve equality in society. There are different ways to do this:
**1. Focus on opportunities:**
* This idea, like Rawls's "primary goods" (things like education, freedom, income), focuses on giving everyone the chance to succeed.
* It's like giving everyone equal starting points in a race.
**2. Focus on resources:**
* This idea, like Dworkin's "equality of resources," focuses on giving everyone an equal amount of "stuff" they can use to achieve their goals.
* It's like giving everyone the same toolbox, even if they might use the tools differently.
**Problem:** Both approaches have issues:
* **Means vs. ends:** These things (primary goods, resources) are just tools to achieve something else (like happiness, freedom). How do we value these tools if we don't know what the final goal is?
* **Dependence on goals:** The value of these tools depends on what you want to achieve with them. So, equality in these things might not lead to equality in what people actually achieve.
**Key takeaway:**
Focusing on just opportunities or resources might not be enough for true equality. We need to consider both the tools and the goals people are trying to achieve.
**Note:** This is a simplified explanation of a complex topic. There are many nuances and criticisms of these approaches.
Understanding Amartya Sen on Primary Goods and Capabilities
This paragraph discusses the limitations of using "primary goods" as a measure of justice in Rawls's "political conception."
Key points:
Primary goods: Rawls proposes resources like income, liberties, and social respect as essential for any good life ("primary goods").
Critique: However, Sen argues these are just means (resources) not the actual ends (freedom to choose a good life).
Example: Two people with equal income might have different abilities to convert it into a fulfilling life due to health, skills, etc.
Solution: Sen proposes focusing on capabilities, which represent the actual freedom to choose various life options, not just the resources to do so.
In simpler terms:
Imagine everyone starts with the same tools (primary goods). But not everyone can build the same things (good life) with those tools due to their individual differences. Sen argues we should care about the things they can actually build (capabilities), not just the tools they have.
This is important because:
It emphasizes individual freedom and actual choices people can make, not just resources they possess.
It addresses how inequalities in factors like health or skills can limit freedom even with equal resources.
Remember: This is a simplified explanation of a complex topic. There are different perspectives and debates on how to measure justice and equality.
This paragraph by Amartya Sen delves deeper into the distinction between his concept of capabilities and two other related ideas: primary goods and achievements.
Key points:
Capability vs. Primary Goods:
Capability: Represents the freedom a person actually enjoys to choose different life options.
Primary Goods: Resources like income, wealth, and liberties that are means to achieve a good life.
Example: Someone with a disability might have more resources but less capability due to their limitations.
Capability vs. Achievements:
Capability: The potential to choose various life options.
Achievements: Actual combinations of functionings (actions and states) enjoyed.
Example: Two people with the same potential freedom might choose different combinations based on their goals.
Addressing Rawls' critique:
Rawls misinterprets Sen's critique as assuming everyone has the same goals.
Sen emphasizes individual variation in goals ("comprehensive view of the good") within Rawls' political conception.
Focusing on primary goods, Rawls argues, misses the actual freedom people have to use them based on their individual circumstances and goals.
In simpler terms:
Imagine tools (primary goods) and options (functionings). Sen says "capability" is having the freedom to choose different options with your tools, not just having more tools. This freedom depends on individual factors beyond just resources. It's not just about the options you have (capability), but also what you actually choose and achieve.
Remember: This is a condensed explanation. There are nuances and ongoing debates regarding justice and well-being.
UNDP’s Human Development Index is the most well-known and respected measure of comprehensive development and has been around for many years now. India has consistently ranked quite low
Anup Sinha
Published 16.02.24, 05:48 AM
India’s 75-year journey towards economic development has been impressive on many counts but equally disappointing on many others. The biblical cup does not ‘runneth over’, it is not even quite half full yet. Politicians, especially those who enjoyed power, have appropriated credit for India’s economic growth, increases in incomes and wealth, the rise of new industries, and the spread of new cities and towns. It would appear that without their vision and administrative acumen, not much would have been possible. This may not be a completely undue perception. However, while they are responsible for some of the successes, they are equally responsible for the large gaps and deficits. The more-than-half-empty cup is their making through wasted opportunities, myopic visions, greed and selfishness and, last but not least, through their lack of concern. What has not been done is, arguably, more important than what has been achieved in terms of national aspirations.
What are the major gaps in India’s economic development? There are many, but a few stand out for attention. Take, for instance, adequate employment opportunities for all. These should be enough so that the overwhelming majority of people — men and women — who wish to work can obtain gainful employment. This is not merely earning any wages. It is about earning a reasonably stable and decent living-wage for pursuing a minimum standard of living. Not all have the capability or the desire to be entrepreneurs. The signals being sent out to the youth is this: be an entrepreneur and quickly become a millionaire. And if you fail — which most do — it is considered to be your failure. This is being done precisely because the job markets are drying up, and will dry up at a faster pace in the near future through the rapid spread of Artificial Intelligence. India’s job markets have been shaken up during the last 10 years. There has been a systematic informalisation of the labour force, weakening of the power of labour unions, growth of contractual labour, marked reduction in women’s participation in the labour force, growing insecurity of inter-state migrant workers and, above all, a reduction in real wages for a large portion of the workforce. Livelihoods and incomes have become extremely insecure.
ADVERTISEMENT
The labour market changes have an impact on poverty and economic vulnerability as people could easily slip back into poverty and unemployment. While extreme poverty has come down over the past decades, a lot of mid-level poverty has proven to be sticky. According to the World Bank poverty line of $6.85 (at 2017 Purchasing Power Parities) per person per day, 40% of the population still earns below that line measured in 2023. Multidimensional poverty — taking into account income and assets as well as factors related to health, education and the standard of living — has fallen in the recent past, but on the Global Hunger Index (prepared by Concern Worldwide, an international NGO, and Welthungerhilfe) India is ranked 111 out of 125 countries in 2023. The rank was 107 out of the 121 nations in 2022. Covid-19 took its toll on poverty too as many more millions slipped into extreme poverty. The more the uncertainty in the labour market the more the probability that a large number of people will slip back into poverty.
The impressive macroeconomic growth over the past 25 to 30 years has raised average incomes and reduced absolute poverty. However, the bottom of the economic pyramid has spread over a larger population facing increased insecurities and uncertainties. During what could be considered the worst years for India’s economy and society — at the height of the pandemic — the number of billionaires grew sharply and the richest 10% of citizens extensively added to their wealth. The top 10% of Indians earn a whopping 57% of the total income and own 77.4% of the economy’s total wealth (Oxfam). The figures for the bottom 50% of India are alarmingly dismal. They own only 3% of the wealth and earn around 13% of the income. The top 10%’s incomes are 20 times that earned by the poorest 50%. This level of inequality is unacceptable from an ethical standpoint. Little wonder then that the word ‘socialism’ is anathema to the rulers of the country. Untamed inequality has political consequences too. It restricts social mobility, triggers sudden violent conflicts and induces authoritarian reactions.
The United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Index is arguably the most well-known and respected measure of comprehensive development and has been around for many years now. India has consistently ranked quite low. In the last three years, the rank has hovered between 131 and 132 out of the 189 to 191 nations scored and ranked. This well-known index takes not only income changes but also some surrogate measures of access to health services and educational attainments of the population. A low score clearly means that despite a rise in per capita incomes, the nation is losing out on education and health for the majority of the population. A related issue pertains to the importance of increasing freedoms on the road to development — economic freedoms, political and civil liberties, and freedom of expression through print and electronic media. There are many reputed international think tanks and agencies that measure these. In overall freedom in the world (Freedom House), India is classified as ‘partly free’, in economic freedom (The Wall Street Journal) as ‘mostly unfree’, in press freedom (Reporters Without Borders) it is in a “very serious” condition and for overall democracy (The Economist) the nation is classified as a “flawed democracy”.
An important desideratum of development in today’s world is what the nation does to preserve the natural environment and promote sustainable development. In 2022, on the Environmental Performance Index (Yale, Columbia and McCall-MacBain Foundation) India was ranked 180 out of 180 nations. The index measures improvements in health, business and environmental ecosystems. For a nation that is poor, extremely vulnerable to climate change and has the largest population, the neglect of the environment reflects severe myopia. In terms of urban pollution, congestion and degradation of ecosystem services, India’s performance is among the worst in the world. This, for a nation that is considered the seventh most vulnerable in terms of climate risks according to Germanwatch, a research think tank.
It is now well-established that economic development cannot be measured by the level of national income alone or the rate of growth of the gross domestic product. These measures hide more than they reveal. What is required is a dashboard of indices that cover poverty, unemployment, inequality, lack of freedom and environmental degradation — all of which a nation would like to have less of. Reducing these significantly adds to the soft power of a nation. As a nation, India has persisted with the glory of GDP and growth rates for 75 years. Not only that, in recent years, there has been an obfuscation of official economic and social data. Any criticism is found unacceptable — either it is considered erroneous or it is considered conspiratorial. Praise, on the other hand, is never questioned as flattery. After 75 years of independence we, as a nation, have not been able to face and address some inconvenient truths.
Anup Sinha is former Professor of Economics, IIM Calcutta
Any form of government or societal structure is only as “good” as the people who make up that body, whether it is based in capitalism, communism, socialism or totalitarianism. In these cases, I would define “good” as something that works well for the benefit of those involved. Given the vast complexities of the interactions of individuals within those structures, as well as the complexities of each of the individuals themselves, creating a societal situation that is “good” for all is an immense, if not impossible, task.
Since the government of the United States of America was built on the ideal of it being a self-governing nation based on the premise that all men are created equal and that it is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, it reflects the characteristics of the people who are both the governing and the governed.
Because human beings are always in the process of living (hopefully), which involves both expected and unexpected events and the necessary decisions and actions regarding those events, every moment represents a new frontier, of sorts, that people must face with either the tools that they have created in moments passed or new tools created in order face the new events. Since all of this is usually a venture into the unknown, mistakes are easily made and undesired consequences may be encountered. This is always a challenge to our government.
“We the people” are only human, after all, and because it is essential for us to have the ability to move beyond our mistakes, we must be able to learn from those mistakes and, in order to not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” when addressing those responsible for the mistakes, we must be able to forgive those people. To be able to forgive, we must also love and respect and have compassion for one another. This is not an easy task.
For any form of self-government to function for the good of all involved, all who are involved must, in some way, work for the good of all who are involved. When factions of those governed do not seek to work harmoniously with others for the good of all involved, then that government will fail in its quest unless it can somehow bring those recalcitrant factions into alignment with rest of those who are governed. This action will then infringe the rights of freedom of action of that “recalcitrant” faction and that faction will see itself as being repressed. This is the crux of the conundrum facing any form of self-government.
In a totalitarian state, the freedoms of the “recalcitrant” faction do not matter and that faction can easily be either suppressed or destroyed, depending on the whim of the government. Under a form of self-government dedicated to working for the greater good, the concerns of that out-of-step faction must be taken into consideration and addressed with respect and compassion. Only then will things be able to be sorted out.
Without mutual respect, compassion, consideration, trust and, yes, love, self-government, whether based on democratic or republican ideals, becomes an impossibility.
It is only by conquering our own minds, each one of us, and involving ourselves respectfully with one another in our societal interactions, that we will ever develop a form of government that actually works to the benefit of all involved.
“Love is my religion.”
-Ziggy Marley
“We got to let love rule.”
-Lenny Kravitz