… or at least, economists employed by the governments. So says Amol Agrawal in a searing piece that is at once a lament as well as an indictment.
Why is the nature of discourse today so painfully zero-sum? Why do we have a take-no-prisoner approach to discussions, where disagreement is necessarily proof of the fact that the other person isn’t just wrong, but their motives are suspect? There are plenty of hypotheses for why this is so for all of us at large, but Amol shines a spotlight on my tribe, and my tribe is supposed to internalize for themselves and teach the rest of the world that the world is a non-zero sum game.
Except it isn’t. Not any more, and certainly not in the case of economists talking about the economy in India:
The current government economists discredit any critique of economic policy. Each time any analysis/report comes up critiquing the economic policy, the economists rush in to disagree and discard the criticism. The purpose of these articles is not to engage but rebut/attack the institution/writer of the critiques. Shoot both the message and the messenger seems to be the mantra.
It is also highly fashionable to draw comparisons with earlier eras and say how bad things were back then. They forget it has been ten years of the current government and people are asking questions on the current economic policy. They also forget how they themselves critiqued economic policy and built their own careers. One is also amazed how the media whose job is to critique economic policy, allow so many one-sided articles.
https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2024/04/11/economists-working-with-the-government-what-has-changed/
Disagreements are not just “fine”, they are the point. When you and I look at a slice of the world and come away with different conclusions, it is because we bring a different perspective, a different methodology, a different set of facts to emphasize and analyze,and a different ideology.
All of these things are true, not just the last one.
For all of us to sweep away the different conclusions, perspectives, methodologies and sets of facts under the carpet, and pin the differences on ideology alone is a tragedy with far reaching consequences.
There are people who will oppose the current government on ideological grounds alone (alone, in this case, is used in this sense: indicating that something is confined to the specified subject or recipient). And likewise, there are people who will defend the current government on ideological grounds alone. That is just the world we live in, and these messages will get amplified and shared more than they should.
But for all of us to behave in only this manner is a society that no longer talks to each other. It is a society that is divided along deeply tribal lines, and with every passing day, those lines get deeper and more permanent.
The hardliners on both sides – on one side are those who critique the government and and on the other those who defend it – will say that the other side started it first, and they had no choice to respond. They will also say that the other side is worthy of this kind of behavior and ostracization, because the other side is evil, and needs to be destroyed for our version of this country to flourish.
Bullshit.
Allow me to labor the point:
When you and I look at a slice of the world and come away with different conclusions, it is because we bring a different perspective, a different methodology, a different set of facts to emphasize and analyze and a different ideology.
We would do well to not ignore all of these points. Hanging the weight of the world on just the one word, regardless of which side does it (or did it first), does nobody any good.
No government in independent India’s history has been uniformly bad. Nor has any government been uniformly good. You and I will (and should!) have opinions about which government was the best, which was the worst, and which lay somewhere in the middle. You and I will try to convince the other of why we say what we do. And you and I will reach some sort of an agreement, or at least an appreciation of why the other person thinks what they do. Disagreements are food for thought, not excuses to launch personal attacks.
That this needs to be said is a matter of shame for everybody, but especially for social scientists, and doubly so for economists. (Yes, I hold my tribe to a higher standard).
Economics is about three things:
- What does the world look like?
- Why does the world look the way it does?
- What can we do to make the world a better place?
“Better” is tricky because better is subjective.
“We” is all of us, those who defend and those who critique the government.
So if I say (and I do) that the census not having been conducted is a problematic thing, I say it because I think it is a problematic thing. The truth value of that statement isn’t only a function of the fact that I am saying it, or that I am saying it in a publication that you don’t like, or what my political affiliations or economic ideology are.
I use the census thing as an example. Replace “census not having been conducted” with “improvements in our airports”, and replace “is a problematic thing” with “is a wonderful thing” for the same take, but from the other side.
If your Pavlovian response to the census thing is whataboutery, or if your Pavlovian response to the airports thing is whataboutery, then you have a problem. Sure, bring up the fact that the pandemic was a factor. And likewise, sure, bring up the fact that oligopolies are a problem. But don’t decide that the statement is wrong as a function who is saying it – decide the truth value on the basis of the statement, not the person behind the statement.
And one final point, to circle back to Amol’s post.
Criticizing the government is not just fine, it’s not just OK, it’s what economists will do. We will do it because we want the world to be a better place.
Economic policy should not be limited to criticizing the previous governments and praising the current government. The policy should lay a framework to improve the economic conditions of the people. It should not just agree to the government decisions but caution the government against missteps. That is how we saw things and admired all the economists who have served the governments all these years.
https://mostlyeconomics.wordpress.com/2024/04/11/economists-working-with-the-government-what-has-changed/
Kudos to Amol for saying what he did, and I look forward to reading more from him about what the government, and its economists, can do better. The fact that he (and I, and so many others) critique their work isn’t proof that the work of the government or its economists is bad. Nor is it proof that we are evil. It is our attempt to help make the world a better place.
Now, please tell me why you think I’m wrong, and let’s have a debate about it.
Very underrated thing to do in 2024!
EconForEverybody 