Hindustan Times (Delhi)

‘Socialbene­fit notsameasp­rivategain’

-

If we don’t get really talented teachers, we are not going to get young people interested in doing exciting academic things. Partly because industry has become so much more lucrative etc... If we don’t have good teachers, we can’t have good students.

happening in the Indian economy. I think there’s a Keynesian or a demand driven downturn which feeds on itself. I don’t have money, so I don’t buy biscuits, so the biscuit company shuts down and they don’t buy. I think the best short-term action is to pump demand into the hands of those who spend. This is what the Obama administra­tion did in the US. This is beyond ideology. What’s controvers­ial is how much of a demand downturn are we facing. Not everybody agrees that we are facing a demand-driven slowdown. Given that the data isn’t wonderful, I’m willing to accept that those who don’t agree with this are not necessaril­y mala fide or something.

“One very real danger is that in trying to hold on to fast growth, India will veer towards policies that hurt the poor now in the name of future growth”, your book says. Can you elaborate?

This is the experience of so many countries. What happened in the UK or US? After growth slowed down in these countries in the 1970s, it never recovered. They had no idea why it slowed down. At that point, the first reaction was that the high tax and high redistribu­tion policy frame was to blame for it, and therefore cutting them was the solution to it. That was Regan and Thatcher style economics.

Are you saying that we are heading towards that kind of economics in India?

No, I’m just saying that it’s the natural reaction of government­s when growth slows down. We are saying that we should be warned that such policies did nothing for the US and UK other than blowing up inequality. In some ways these policies created the way for economics which leads to Trump and Brexit.

What would you do to revive the economy?

I’m not a macro economist.

But if I were a policymake­r then I would first collect a lot of data, and if I were convinced that it is a real demand-driven slowdown, then I would put lots of money into the hands of the poor. That is something I believe in absolutely. That is what the Obama administra­tion did in the name of quantitati­ve easing. That’s not unheard of.

Your book also talks about how fighting corruption is not a costless endeavour. In the last few years, fighting corruption has been an important driver of politics and policy in India. Cancellati­on of resource allocation­s to demonetisa­tion are some examples. Do you think it has contribute­d to the current economic situation?

Whether it is anti-corruption, or the fear of being seen as corrupt, or maybe corruption was important in greasing the wheels of the economy and it has been cut down, lots of my business friends tell me that decision making has slowed down. They feel that there is a set of institutio­ns, but they seem to be reluctant. I think certain amount of forbearanc­e is crucial at the heart of market economy. You have to tell people that you are innocent until proven guilty. You have to assure people that mistakes are not malfeasanc­e.

The book terms bulk of R&D efforts being directed towards machine learning and other big data methods as a distractio­n from truly path-breaking innovation­s. Are you making a case that private dominance in R&D might not lead to socially optimal innovation?

There is a pretty good case to be made that private incentives are not social incentives. We don’t like people being unemployed, but private companies don’t care. If it is cheaper to replace an employee with a machine, a private company will do it. The Korean government is the first to declare that if you replace people with machines you have to pay a tax. It’s a tax on robots. They make private companies internalis­e the social cost of unemployme­nt. Social benefit is not the same as private benefit. We have to realise this.

What do you think about the importance of internatio­nal cooperatio­n to deal with the current economic situation globally? We live in the times of trade wars. History tells us the breakdown of such cooperatio­n preceded the great depression.

History suggests that people should be very scared of this moment. I despair that the Chinese will not be able to persuade Mr Trump. If the US makes China shrink, then we will all pay for that. China is also a very large consumer of commoditie­s, which are supplied by a lot of poor countries.

Your book argues that expression of contempt for those who express racist sentiments or vote for such leaders serves to only reinforce those sentiments. Would you like to explain this in the context of India?

I have always argued that we need to be able to understand people’s reasons for voting for even polarising leaders. If you take the view that because somebody has done it, therefore they are a bad person, you are underminin­g all possible ways for democratic discussion and resolution. It is my belief that lots of good people get pushed down certain political alleys by forces they do not fully understand or have control over. Therefore, both morally and practicall­y, judging them for doing so is not correct.

Are you saying that democracy has not let down liberal values, but liberals have let down democracy?

Correct. That is a beautiful way of saying it. I have always taken that view that we, as liberals in India, have not created a deep enough liberalism. We should stick to our liberalism and not lose the tolerance which is built into it.

“Many economists have a philosophi­cal objection to manipulati­ng preference­s”, you’ve written in your book. We have just celebrated the 150th birth anniversar­y of Mahatma Gandhi, whose economic outlook, often bordering on changing preference­s, is criticized by most economists. Do you think Gandhi is relevant in the current fight against global poverty?

I think most economists don’t know much about Gandhi, and a particular generation of economists might have been anti-gandhi. But in today’s world, it is hard to not appreciate his extraordin­ary commitment to not label people and try to be inclusive of people who were despising of him. I think that is a very powerful commitment which I deeply admire. Even though he got angry temporaril­y, he would try to reach out to the same people once his anger went away. Gandhi’s philosophy was remarkably deeply liberal in a way. It came from saying that in the end, everybody has good in them. That liberalism is deep liberalism.

The Nobel Prize will significan­tly increase your following beyond the discipline of economics, especially in India. What would you like to say to India’s youth, especially those pursuing their academic careers?

You should love what you do. I talked to a bunch of people in finance who say I’ve made a lot of money but I’m bored. I think they would have been better off doing what they enjoy. Passion is an extraordin­arily handy thing to have in life. I’m 58, but I’m still extremely passionate about what I do. I want to just keep doing the research I do. That’s a huge reward.

Do you think we in India have been able to provide such an eco-system to our young generation?

I think less than when I was growing up. When I went to college and to JNU, there were people who had very different political views, but they were all extremely talented and passionate people. That’s what made me want to be an academic. If we don’t get really talented teachers, we are not going to get young people interested in doing exciting academic things. Partly because industry has become so much more lucrative etc. We don’t attract the most talented people in academics. If we don’t have good teachers, we can’t have good students.

Can you list two factors each which makes you optimistic and pessimisti­c about India?

There is still a deep optimism in India that the future will be better and it will be Indian. Then there’s the effortless sense of immediate warmth in India, which you do not find in other places.

I worry about the fact that there is a whole generation of people who’ve been short changed by the education they have got. At some point they have a right to be angry. They invested in education, were first generation learners. So their expectatio­ns have gone up, but they might crash. Second, we need to be more tolerant of dissent. It is a part of our tradition. In my family there were all kinds of Hindus; Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas etc. There was no particular homogeneit­y. We need to embrace that.

 ?? PAROMA MUKHERJEE/ HT PHOTO ?? Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee in New Delhi on Saturday.
PAROMA MUKHERJEE/ HT PHOTO Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee in New Delhi on Saturday.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India