A winner-takes-all economy is bad for idea diversity—and art
An establishment that determines rewards can cramp innovation
The world has seen numerous challenges over the past decade, including the pandemic, economic uncertainties, geopolitical shocks and a rapid pace of technological change. India has navigated these challenges remarkably well. Today, it is poised to become the world’s third-largest economy over the next five years and will add on more GDP every year than the EU. There is a palpable sense that this is our time, both in India and in the eyes of the world.
The government’s policy innovations and timely decision-making have kept the economy on track and created new opportunities. More importantly, a focus on inclusive growth and a digital mindset are crucial elements of the foundation that has been built. Adept management of the country’s economy has been commendable. India has witnessed steady growth, employed fiscal discipline, nurtured a resilient banking sector and offered support to disadvantaged sections of society.
Even as the economy received sustained support, foundational efforts were made for realizing the long-term vision of a developed India. Reforms were embraced, ambitious targets were set across sectors and a steadfast focus on execution was kept at all levels. Let us examine a few major outcomes.
infrastructure development has visibly caught pace. National highway construction increased from about 12.1km per day in 2014-15 to 28.3km per day in 2022-23, as recorded, and rural road connectivity coverage is at 99%. Metro rail projects have reached 20 cities, 94% of India’s total broad-gauge railway network has been electrified and 74 airports have been operationalized since 2014. The Gati Shakti National Master Plan, connecting 35 central government departments for multi-modal connectivity, is a notable example of infrastructure development.
is the set of initiatives taken to boost manufacturing. The biggest is India’s productionlinked incentive (PLI) scheme, which covers 14 sectors, aimed at improving our manufacturing capabilities. Latest figures indicate that it had attracted investments of over ₹1.03 trillion till November 2023, resulting in production/sales of ₹8.61 trillion and employment generation of over 678,000.
several measures have been taken to improve the ease of doing business. These include liberalized foreign investment rules and the launch of a unified tax system, GST. Over 3,600 rules of compliance have been freed of criminalfailure risk and 41,000 have been reduced by various ministries/departments and states/ Union territories. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2023, has been passed by Parliament. Further, a national single window system has been introduced to simplify government-to-business (G2B) clearance processes across ministries. For easier business exits, we now have the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
is India’s digital revolution. The country has witnessed an exponential increase in digital penetration on the back of the ‘JAM trinity’ of Jan Dhan, Aadhaar and Mobile, national digital literacy mission, Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC), Government e Marketplace (GeM), etc. Over 500 million people have benefited from the Jan Dhan Yojana, with over ₹2 trillion deposited in these accounts.
is the government’s focus on ease of living by improving the delivery of services to people. From universal sanitation coverage to social welfare schemes in the areas of healthcare (340 million-plus citizens get free health insurance under Ayushman Bharat), pension and banking, from smoke-free kitchens (100 million-plus women given free gas connections) to piped water being made far more widely available (140 million-plus families now have access to clean tap water), and from technology access to housing efforts (40 million-plus families have pucca houses now), welfare schemes are touching millions of lives.
India envisions itself as a $30 trillion-plus economy by 2047, a GDP target for Viksit Bharat. The manufacturing sector should be 25% of GDP. For this, we must aim to make manufacturing grow 16 times and exports 11 times. To enhance this sector’s competitiveness, the country needs to prioritize research and development, quality production at scale, digitalization, skill development and a holistic approach to the entire value chain. This is even more important in hi-tech sectors such as defence, electronics and semiconductors. This will go a long way to making India a leading ‘product nation’.
Next, India ranks seventh globally among countries most affected by climate change. However, climate change offers an opportunity as well. Given the need for funding and technology to address it, we must focus on creating a business model out of climate change. Renewables, electric vehicles and green cities are excellent examples. The private sector and government must collaborate to harness this potential.
Further, enhancing the judicial capacity in the country is important. India has only 20 judges per 1 million people, which means that even routine legal processes like enforcing a contract might take up to four years. By increasing judicial capacity and deploying technology, courts may be able to reduce resolution time.
Finally, the benefits of our economic prosperity should be distributed to all. This vision extends to ensuring the well-being of our farmers, who are integral to our nation’s success. We need greater participation of women in economic activities across sectors. We should target female labour force participation of 45-50% by 2047.
Given much-improved telecom connectivity in smaller cities and towns, women from even the remotest parts of India can serve any part of the world, provided we offer them the right training and skills. This presents an opportunity for India to become the world’s front-office. By empowering farmers, increasing agricultural productivity and promoting women’s workforce participation, we can build a more inclusive and prosperous India.
Iwas disappointed by this year’s Whitney Biennial—it was hard for me to tell if one video installation was art or an HR training video—but as an economist, I have to admit the exhibition was successful in at least one respect: It did what art is supposed to do, which is to hold up a mirror to our society and economy. And this year’s biennial shows how America’s elite institutions are stifling innovation and creativity.
The theme of this year’s show was to use AI and the “rhetoric around gender and authenticity” to “explore the permeability of the relationships between mind and body, the fluidity of identity, and the growing precariousness of the natural and constructed worlds.” I liked some of it, but I was not alone in my disappointment. Some critics complained that much of it was predictable and risk-averse.
It is unfortunate that artists, known for unconventional politics and solidarity with the unseen and discriminated against, now have views that have been adopted or even outpaced by mainstream cultural institutions and corporations. If artists want to offend or provoke, they need to do work that will truly shock their audience—say, an installation sympathizing with the 6 January protesters [in the US capital]. But it is doubtful an artist pushing those kinds of boundaries would be accepted to the MFA programme at Yale, let alone get representation from a well-regarded New York gallery, never mind catch the attention of a Whitney curator.
This is the problem with a winner-takeall economy. Contemporary art, like other industries, offers big financial rewards to just a few stars. For everyone else, it is nearly impossible to make a living. Becoming a star of the art world requires jumping through a series of hoops arranged by elite institutions. This is true in many fields, but especially true for art partly because it is often hard to judge the value of art.
It is not simply a matter of taste. To be sold at big galleries and appeal to collectors, artists require the establishment’s nod. This is why the biennial is important. But the establishment has become timid and intellectually homogenous.
Of course, an artist can promote one’s work online. It is notable that many critics say that better art—stuff that actually makes use of AI, for example—can be found online. It’s just harder to earn a living.
In many ways, this mirrors what’s happening in the rest of the economy. There are a lot of ways to be successful, but working at a top firm in your field—whether it’s law, technology, consulting, banking or something else—requires institutional buy-in, the right educational pedigree, and the appropriate kind of experience (internships, extracurricular activities, hobbies, that kind of thing). The result is a class of like-minded people acting as gatekeepers for a system in which they themselves are heavily invested.
Yes, this is mostly an elite concern. Most Americans don’t aspire to be famous artists or partners at Goldman Sachs. But it is important because more than ever, the economy is dominated by a few super-productive firms.
Their scale means they are the ones who are pushing innovation forward and setting the standards for culture and commerce. And with a few notable exceptions, among these firms innovation is stagnating and risk-taking is getting harder. Even scientific advancement, which also has become more winner-take-all and riskaverse, has slowed. Creativity still exists, including in art, but at the highest levels, the system squashes it.
The result is a strange dichotomy. On the one hand, it has never been easier to get noticed. You can go online and become known for anything, from your art to your financial advice. The barriers to entry have never been lower—and this ecosystem does seem to reward creativity. At the same time, the economic upper echelon has never been harder to crack, and it rewards people who play it safe.
The US economy rewards scale, so that top tier is still crucial. The question is how long this bifurcated system can last. If the commanding heights do not continue to inspire or create, will they remain important? Which brings me back to the Whitney Biennial. If it continues to be predictable, it will lose its status as the place where collectors and top galleries can see what is provocative and new.Recall that in the past, the biennial has served as a launching pad for artists such as Georgia O’Keeffe and Jackson Pollock.
The erosion of establishment authority, which is not unique to the art world, can be unsettling and even a little demoralizing. But if it allows more talented people to become successful by following less conventional paths, then the American economy will become more democratic—and more productive.