Tag: we the citizens

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!

We, The Citizens: A Review

There is an impossible trilemma at play when it comes to writing explainers:

How does one manage to be simple, interesting and comprehensive all at once?

And the short answer to the question is that this isn’t possible. One can choose to be simple and interesting, but one must then give up on covering everything associated with a topic. One could choose to be interesting and comprehensive, but then one has to sacrifice simplicity. And finally, being simple and comprehensive is possible, but be prepared to bid adieu to being interesting.

Here’s the really bad news. None of us (present author included) manage to figure this out right away. When we create something – a blog post, a book, a video, an Instagram reel, etc., – we aspire to do all three things at once. Not only does this guarantee failure, but you may well end up achieving not one of the three goals.

And trust me, because I speak from many, many years of having experienced this, both as a consumer and a producer.

And that’s why I had a smile on my face while reading the introduction to We, The Citizens. Because the authors of the book are quite clear that it isn’t an academic tome that drones on and on and on. It is, instead, a book with a clear bias towards clarity and simplicity.

But they are quite clear about the fact that this book is also a starter, not the main course. Or, if you prefer, you should have two clear takeaways by the time you finish reading the book.

As a student, you should find your appetite properly and thoroughly whetted. Go read more books about public policy! Which ones, you ask? One of the three authors has a pretty good answer, you could begin there (and I talk more about this down below, so stay tuned). Or any other book of your choice, but please, do read more about public policy.

And the second takeaway as a doer is the one that the authors themselves leave you with:

Think of the rest of the book – the part between the introduction and the very last panel, as the answers to the questions one inevitably has:

  1. What was this audacious dream (and why was it audacious)?
  2. Why does the responsibility to fulfill it lie upon us (why doesn’t somebody else go and do this, yaar?)
  3. Why do we have much work to do (75 years and counting and we still have work to do)?

The answers to these questions are given in a fashion that informs and entertains at the same time. And this alone is reason enough to buy the book, because very few of them (books, that is) manage to lie at the intersection.

And if you know your political history and current affairs, you will enjoy the many zingers that will leave you gasping, grinning and grimacing in equal measure. Even better, this holds true regardless of your political affiliation.

The book uses the same framework that we learnt about in Missing in Action:

In order to do this, they divide the world into three different aspects: the state, the market and society. Or, to use their terminology: sarkaar, bazaar and samaaj. Think of the individual, and the individual’s life, as being impacted by her interactions with these three ‘pillars’ of society. How do these pillars impact her? How do these pillars interact with each other?

https://econforeverybody.com/2023/01/16/in-praise-of-missing-in-action-by-pranay-kotasthane-and-raghu-s-jaitley/

But that framework is used, in this book, to introduce elements of public policy, economics (and related subjects) to the interested layperson, and that in an engaging, humorous fashion. The special trick that the authors manage is being able to do so without ever once appearing overly simplistic.

And if you think you know your economics (or your public policy, for that matter), you will still enjoy reading this book. I was wondering how to phrase this next bit, but I will outsource the job to the one and only Roger Ebert, who is talking about one of my all time favorite movies:

“The Princess Bride” reveals itself as a sly parody of sword and sorcery movies, a film that somehow manages to exist on two levels at once: While younger viewers will sit spellbound at the thrilling events on the screen, adults, I think, will be laughing a lot.

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-princess-bride-1987

I very much plan on reading this book with my daughter, and taking my own sweet time over it. And I hope she sits spellbound as she learns the nuts and bolts of public policy, but I can assure you that her dad has already dished out an appreciative chuckle or two.

Why, the page of contents alone is worth the price of entry! Fun task for those of you who will read the book soon: can you spot Doordarshan, Ronald Coase, Times of India advertisements and Hayek in the page of contents? Funner* task: how many other references can you spot? And not just in the page of contents, mind you, but throughout the book. So even for those of us who are likely to think yaar, ye sab pata hai, the book is still worth a read.

Best of all, the concluding chapters do a good job of recommending books one might choose to tackle after having finished this one, beginning with In The Service of the Republic.

The one “complaint” I have about the book is that I found myself wishing for an extended “Here’s what you could read next” section. If you are, say, a twelve year old, you most certainly can (and should!) read this book, and then keep on reading many more books related to this topic. But which books? The answer will differ for all of us, and while there are some capital recommendations out there, they are perhaps a little bit too advanced for the younger reader.

But if I may be allowed a sly reference of my own, maybe the authors would consider “bridging” the gap between their own “capital” endeavor and these slightly more advanced lists? An intermediate book on public policy to bridge the gap, as it were.

On behalf of all of the readers of the book, present and future, allow greedy ol’ me to channel my inner Twist and ask the sirs (and the ma’am!) if we could please have some more?