Day: April 3, 2024

Yamini Aiyar Asks a Question, and We Try to Answer

First, the question. We’ll get to who the “we” in the title is (or should it be “are” instead of “is”?) in a bit, and also to our answers.

Ideally in a democracy, there ought to be space for evidence-based partnerships with government whilst simultaneously holding the mirror. But when the space for holding the mirror shrinks, when freedoms are trampled upon, what should the public policy professional do? There is a real risk that the pressures of relevance can, and indeed do, push researchers to blunt critique, to inadvertently, perhaps, stop asking difficult questions and refrain from critical public engagement. Is there a need then to redefine our role, to question the narrow prism of relevance and impact that we judge ourselves by?

https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/on-evidence-policy-making-and-critiquing-it-in-a-polarised-polity-2958920

Say Hello to ArreBhaiWah

Paul Krugman has a textbook on international economics. Standard stuff, and quite a good textbook, running into multiple editions. I may be wrong over here about the specific topic, but I think it is in the context of national accounting with international trade that Paul Krugman asks us to imagine a country called Agraria.

In much the same vein, but for entirely different reasons, I’m going to ask you to imagine a country called ArreBhaiWah.

Because when it comes to India, we will have to spend a significant amount of time having heated debates about whether the space for holding the mirror has shrunk or not. I might (and do!) say that yes, it has shrunk. You, on the other hand, might say that it has expanded instead. And then we will argue and call each other names and get applauded for having reminded the other side of their grandmothers. That is fun to do, but would not be constructive, nor productive.

So let us, instead, focus on ArreBhaiWah.

If you are a public policy professional in ArreBhaiWah, and you see that the space for holding the mirror has shrunk, and you need to analyze what you should do about it – what framework should you use to arrive at your answer?

This isn’t about answering the question for ArreBhaiWah, you see. As with many posts on EFE, it is about supplying you with a framework to think about the problem. Please decide for yourselves whether the question makes sense, is applicable and finally, what your answer (if any) should be.

Which brings us to who the “we” in the title of this post are (or should it be “is” instead of “are”?). It is yours truly, and the late, great A.O. Hirschman. By the way, both Yamini’s piece and this Wikipedia article about Hirschman deserve to be read in their entirety, so please do.

Exit, Loyalty and Voice

Here’s ChatGPT’s summary of one of my favorite books in economics:

“Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States” is a seminal book by Albert O. Hirschman, published in 1970. The work presents a framework for understanding how people respond to dissatisfaction with organizations or states they are part of. Hirschman’s theory is built around three main concepts: exit, voice, and loyalty, which are mechanisms through which individuals can express their discontent and potentially influence change.

Exit: The option of leaving the organization or ceasing to use its products or services. This is a common response in economic markets; for example, if a customer is dissatisfied with a product, they can simply stop buying it and switch to a competitor. Exit is a powerful mechanism in promoting quality and efficiency due to the competitive pressure it creates.

Voice: The option of actively expressing dissatisfaction and seeking to improve conditions from within, rather than leaving. Voice can take many forms, including direct feedback, protests, or any attempt to change the organization’s practices or policies. Voice is particularly relevant in scenarios where exit is not feasible or desirable, such as in monopolies or with state governance.

Loyalty: Loyalty plays a moderating role in the exit and voice framework. It refers to a person’s attachment to an organization, leading them to endure dissatisfaction while trying to improve the organization through voice, rather than exiting. Loyalty can delay exit and give voice a chance to work, as loyal members or customers may seek to solve problems internally rather than abandoning the organization.

Hirschman’s framework is used to analyze a wide range of economic, political, and social phenomena. It provides insights into how organizations and states can deteriorate or improve over time based on the feedback mechanisms available to and utilized by their members or constituents. It also highlights the importance of maintaining the right balance between allowing exit and encouraging voice to ensure the health and adaptability of organizations and societies.

ChatGPT4

And this is an excellent framework with which to answer Yamini’s question: in ArreBhaiWah, what should the public policy professional do?

Should they choose exit, or voice? To what extent should loyalty influence your decision? Remember, loyalty refers to a person’s attachment to the organization (or the entity) in question.

This is where I step in.

What Are you Optimizing For?

  1. Should you be optimizing for what is best for you?
    • Best for you in a professional context, or personal context?
    • Best for your conscience, or best for your career?
  2. Or should you be optimizing for what is best for ArreBhaiWah?
  3. Or should you be optimizing for what is best for the folks who currently run the government in ArreBhaiWah?

Because as Khyati Pathak, Pranay Kotasthane and Anupam Manur point out in their excellent book We, the Citizens:

Source: We, The Citizens, pg 19

So is your loyalty to the government, or to the nation? Or are you of the considered opinion that the two are the same thing? They are manifestly not, by the way, so even if it is your considered opinion that they are the same thing, please do read Chapter 2 from the book, We, The Citizens (and the rest of the book, while you are at it!)

As with everything else in life, there are only trade-offs, and no solutions. There isn’t an easy way to answer this question that Yamini asks, alas. Optimizing for any one of oneself, ArreBhaiWah or its government also implies not optimizing for everything else.

But there you have it: the framework that one should use while thinking about the answer to Yamini’s question in the context of ArreBhaiWah.

What should her answer be, you ask? Why, that is Yamini’s business and no one else’s, surely. Allow me to wish her luck for what lies ahead, and to thank her for her work thus far. You and I may have disagreed with her about some of her conclusions, but that, I would argue, was part of the point.

Voice is currently underrated!