India Watch #1: Of Protests and Perfect Tricks
Insights on issues relevant to India
— RSJ
For nearly a month now, some of India's top wrestlers, who between them have earned over 25 medals in various global competitions, have been protesting against the conduct of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP MP Brij Bhushan Singh. This is not an ordinary protest. The allegations in the FIR against Singh are quite serious, including a couple of instances of demanding sexual favours as a quid pro quo for professional assistance, about 15 incidents of sexual harassment and stories of inappropriate touching, and molestation of minor girls. You would imagine this would be some kind of an open-and-shut case.
I mean, here are a few women wrestlers who have everything to lose here by taking a stand against their own federation and the government. They aren’t superstar cricketers with financial security and access to media. They don’t have multi-million and multi-year sponsorship deals or lucrative post-retirement commentary gigs waiting for them. Their sport is everything to them, and they are willing to risk that one thing they have loved doing all their lives. These are girls who have come up the hard way in a society that doesn’t prize either women or sports and especially women in sports. They have persevered despite the odds against them because that’s what athletes do. So, the least you would have thought is that while the police investigations and the judicial process is going on, or, as we like to say in India, as the law takes its own course, the government should ask the WFI chief to step down temporarily. Surprisingly though, this doesn't seem to be a priority for the government. Instead, it appears they would rather suppress these voices than address their concerns. So, last week while you had saturation coverage on various channels about the inauguration of the new parliament building, these athletes were being roughed up and assaulted at the site of protest. There was barely any TV media there.
As they say, there are always two Indias at work.
It is tempting to zoom out a bit and say that this story, in many ways, reflects the current state of Indian politics and society. It is not there yet. But there is a pattern in how we are dealing with protests and dissent that merits a deeper look. Before I go there, let me count the number of ways we have got this thing wrong.
Firstly, for decades, we have managed sports and their governing bodies in India in the most unprofessional way possible. These positions have often been given to politicians as small consolation prizes to run their minor fiefdoms. Corruption, nepotism and high-handedness of officials have come along with this. Read any autobiography of an athlete in India and you will be struck by the remarkable apathy and neglect they had to overcome from their own sporting federation to succeed. As major sports events like the Olympics or Asian Games approach, there's often a question of why our sporting performance doesn't reflect our population size and recent prosperity. This story never gets old. While we have seen some improvement in the last decade, we remain an underperforming nation in sports. One fundamental issue to address is improving sports administration by involving experts with experience in either playing the sport, managing large organizations, or possessing a proven visionary track record. Indian tennis is a prime example where one family has presided over its administration for over half a century. We have only gotten worse in tennis, with almost no one ranked anywhere in the top 1000 in the world. Similar fiefdoms exist in other sports like boxing, shooting and even cricket.
Despite the efforts of some public-spirited lawyers and a few interventions by the Supreme Court to set things right, things have remained the same. There was some hope when this government came to power that there would be much-needed reforms in sports administration, especially in those early days. However, once you have the keys to the power of the state, it is difficult to resist its benefits. The result is a disheartening situation where politicians with limited understanding or passion for sports lead the federations. We are back to the bad old days now.
Secondly, we seem to be undoing all the progress we have made in addressing sexual harassment allegations in the workplace. There are POSH committees that are legally mandated in organisations and a framework that allows for a safe and secure environment for women at work. In India, the foundation for this framework was based on the Vishaka guidelines set nearly 25 years ago. In cases like this, the employer (in this case, the sports ministry) should form a committee with an independent chair who investigate these allegations and arrive at their conclusions. And it is usual that during such an investigation, it would be appropriate for the accused to step aside for a free and fair process. However, none of this process has been followed. Neither the WFI nor the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) have even acknowledged taking up these allegations. In fact, P.T. Usha, the current chief of IOA and a track legend initially dismissed them as false and an attempt to tarnish our nation's image. We are back in the territory of ghar ki izzat, and the patriarchal attitudes where raising such concerns are seen as bringing dishonour to one's family or damaging a country's reputation. It is concerning that even government officials are not adhering to their own established guidelines.
The response to the protests by both the sporting fraternity and the general public has been surprising. Despite the police manhandling of these athletes, very few voices have come out in support of them, with notable exceptions like Abhinav Bindra and Sania Mirza. Even their anodyne statements hoping that the athletes are given their due and that proper investigations take place seems like an act of courage. The 1983 cricket World Cup winning team, too, came out with a statement expressing anguish at the treatment of the athletes and hoping for a resolution. I’m not sure what resolution they are expecting in a case that should be picked up by the police and investigated with rigour. Quite disconcertingly, although to the surprise of no one, the usual set of partisans and news anchors have questioned the motives behind these protests. The usual whataboutery season is on in the TV debates, and the WhatsApp universities are busy generating content blaming the victims or distracting us with Rahul Gandhi’s US visit. It is a textbook case of a society losing its moral compass today while romanticising its glorious past and its superiority as a civilisation.
In a society where many underprivileged children pursue sports as a means to improve their lives, the exploitation by administrators and coaches within the system should be a matter of great concern. Despite this reality, political affiliations and a belief that our leader can do no wrong is now trumping reason. We now have a situation where there are people questioning the legal process put in place for sexual harassment complaints that apparently favour the woman victims’ rights to fight their case. This mindset risks undoing the progress made towards providing safe working environments for women. We are happy to go down the path of victim blaming and gaslighting than hold men in power accountable. This in a country where crime against women is still among the highest in the world and that has one of the lowest female participation rates in labor worldwide.
So, why is the government reluctant to act against Singh? Based on the track record of how it has handled previous protests, there are three possible explanations for this behaviour.
One, this administration perceives admitting a mistake as a sign of weakness. They would rather make incorrect decisions than appear weak in any way. We have made this point earlier. This is the basis of its electoral appeal. That it can do no wrong. Accepting that the protesters are right will dent its strong government image. Two, there is the electoral angle to this, given we are less than a year away from the Lok Sabha polls. Brij Bhushan Singh's influence in the Ayodhya-Gonda region cannot be ignored. He or his family members have won elections there for over three decades, regardless of their party affiliation. His ability to switch allegiances while maintaining electoral success suggests a ground network that doesn’t depend on a party for success. While the BJP is on a strong wicket for winning 2024, it doesn’t want to risk failure, especially in U.P. This calculus might still turn if the recent mobilisation of the local Jat communities and Khap panchayats to support the wrestlers becomes stronger. This shift may transform the protest into something more politically relevant, as it happened with the farmer protests. I don’t think I had imagined a day when the Khap panchayats would be seen as advocates of women’s rights. But we are there. The third explanation lies in the ruling party's deeper understanding of social undercurrents, which they believe represent the silent majority's views. This covers issues like women's liberation and how India has imitated Western liberal guidelines that aren’t compatible with our civilisational values. They would like to believe that a sizable portion of Indian society may support a pause on liberal issues especially relating to women’s freedom. I’m not very sure if this is an accurate assessment, but it doesn’t hurt to be politically ambiguous on this.
At a broader level, this is also about how we see protest or dissent in these times. It is intriguing how easily people trust the state despite the weight of history against it while distrusting the protesters who have a grouse against the powerful. This is an odd inversion that seems to have arisen because our collective sense of self-worth and pride are now closely intertwined with our perception of how well the state performs. So, questioning its actions or motives can be seen as an attack on the collective self-worth.
It is an almost perfect trick.
India Policy Watch #2: Beyond Isomorphic Mimicry
Insights on burning policy issues in India
— Pranay Kotasthane
“South Korea became a manufacturing and technological superpower riding on industrial policies that backed chaebols (large domestic business conglomerates), so why shouldn’t India do this too?”
“Technological upgradation of Chinese companies happened because of the Party-state’s policies of Forced Technological Transfer, also known as ‘trade-markets-for-tech (TMFT)’. India should adopt this approach as well.”
“France has banned short-haul flights to counter climate change. India should follow this lead and impose green taxes on air travel if not a full ban.”
“Amsterdam has bicycle tracks and Bogota has Bus Rapid Tranist (BRT); so should Bengaluru.”
I’m pretty sure you have come across similar arguments. Not just people outside the government, policymakers and career analysts can also be found making arguments of this nature. Now, it’s easy to ridicule these points of view as “isomorphic mimicry”, what Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock define as:
the tendency of governments to mimic other governments’ successes, replicating processes, systems, and even products of the ‘best practice’ examples… a key technique of successful failure that perpetuates capability traps in development.
My instinctive response to such arguments is similar. However, I now think that we need to go one step beyond and ask, “why are we prone to committing isomorphic mimicry? What makes us seek refuge in it?” This post is an attempt to answer these questions.
The fundamental reason behind such arguments is a mental model that imagines public policy as a deterministic process where heroic policies can quick-solution us out of trouble. It is this assumption that we must rethink in order to avoid isomorphic mimicry. Here’s why.
To begin with, we need dollops of humility. Forget quick-solutions, we don’t even know all the variables that impact major public policy processes.
Observe, for instance, the question of economic growth. In edition #52, RSJ explained how there’s no single answer as to why countries experience a period of rapid economic growth. At best, we can identify clusters of factors such as economic freedom, political freedom or institutions, geography, and investment in human and physical capital.
So is the case with innovation. Over the last few months, I tried to understand the reasons behind China’s strides in innovation and technology upgradation. The more I read about it, the more it became clear that forced technology transfer, IP theft, or industrial policy alone cannot explain the transformation. At best, I could come up with the explanation that China's innovation is a combination of fundamental factors and proximate factors. The fundamental factors were: a Capable Workforce, Technology Transfers, and State Focus on Innovation. The proximate factors such as Forced Technology Transfer, IP Theft, Specific Government Policies, and Selective Protectionism have, at best, played a cameo role.
So is the case with urbanisation. We have some good hypotheses about why certain sectors spatially organise into concentrated clusters, but we don’t know for sure what would it take to make a successful new city. We can identify some fundamentals, but it’s difficult to create a pathway.
These three examples illustrate the need to adopt a different mental model to think about public policy. One such frame is complexity theory. Over the last two decades, there have been several attempts to think about public policy as a complex system. Public Policy scholar Paul Cairney explains the attributes of complex systems in these words:
A complex system is greater than the sum of its parts; those parts are interdependent – elements interact with each other, share information and combine to produce systemic behaviour.
Some attempts to influence complex systems are dampened (negative feedback) while others are amplified (positive feedback). Small actions can have large effects and large actions can have small effects.
Complex systems are particularly sensitive to initial conditions that produce a long-term momentum or ‘path dependence’.
They exhibit ‘emergence’, or behaviour that results from the interaction between elements at a local level rather than central direction.
They may contain ‘strange attractors’ or demonstrate extended regularities of behaviour which may be interrupted by short bursts of change. [From Paul Cairney’s post on his ever-excellent blog]
When applied to public policy, this complex system mental model gives us a few axioms.
Policy Ingredients, not Policy Recipes
The complex system lens shows us that it is futile to obsess about deriving policies using “best practices” from another country or city. It is far more important to think about preparing the initial conditions that could trigger emergent behaviour towards the desired policy goal. A government shouldn’t be designing a perfect quick solution to a chronic problem, but creating conditions in which different competing solutions can emerge. In a sense, governments need to put together all the essential ingredients that go into achieving a policy goal rather than create an award-winning policy recipe.
This line of thinking explains national innovation. There's no one blueprint to be found for innovation success. Countries have followed different pathways. But we know that ingredients such as reasonably high levels of human capabilities and infrastructure and strong connections with global science and technology ecosystems are common fundamental factors in innovation success.
Another example comes from economic policy. Pro-market policies are about putting together key ingredients for growth take-off, while pro-business policies are equivalents of step-by-step recipes handed down to you. I used to think that finance ministers claiming “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” was a cleverly-worded evasion. But the lens of complexity would suggest that fundamentals are exactly what the government should focus on.
The Idea of Probabilistic Success
The lens of complexity implies that governments are not as effective in achieving our goals. The best case is when governments have prepared all initial conditions for take off. But that’s no guarantee for success. In the Indian context, this thinking should give us a pause before we airdrop governments as a troubleshooter for all our problems.
The Merits of Decentralisation
In a complex system, it’s beneficial to give agency to organisations so that they can learn from their experience and change tack in response to on-ground conditions. In this sense, complexity theory is a reaffirmation of Hayek’s insight in The Use of Knowledge in Society. Individuals and, by extension, markets are in a better position to experiment and display different emergent behaviours than centrally engineered solutions from the top.
Hope, not Analysis-paralysis
Complexity can at once be liberating and shackling. The insight that there are no perfect policy recipes can drive us into an analysis-paralysis mode, leading to dejection and disillusionment. But the knowledge that given the right conditions, emergent behaviour can spring up unexpectedly gives a reason for hope and provides a new meaning to the shloka, “Karmanye Vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadhachana” (perform your duty but do not expect the fruits of your labour).
P.S: The complexity theory mental model holds promise in public policy, but at present, there are far more questions than there are answers.
India Policy Watch #3: Why this Kolaveri with Assembly?
Insights on burning policy issues in India
— Pranay Kotasthane
I like the richness of the debate on the production-linked incentive scheme (PLI) for electronics manufacturing. Last week, economist and former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan questioned the government’s self-congratulatory messages on mobile exports using these words:
“.. it turns out that very little apart from assembly is done in India, though manufacturers claim that they intend to do so in the future. So, India imports much of what goes into the mobile phone, and when we correct for that, it is very hard to maintain that net exports have gone up.”
Some of you readers might recollect that we have regularly critiqued the electronics PLI since its inception. Our first post about it was written in November 2020. So, it shouldn’t surprise you that we agree with this recommendation:
The government should undertake a detailed assessment on how many PLI jobs have been created, the cost to the country per job, and why the PLI doesn’t appear to have worked so far before extending it to other sectors.
That said, I have several questions about the analysis.
First, I was surprised that one of the criticisms in the note is that “it is entirely possible that we have become more dependent on imports during the PLI scheme” on account of increased imports of mobile phone components for assembly in India.
It is well-known that imports of sub-components will keep increasing as we scale up assembly in India for a few years until local substitutes come up, as they did in China and Vietnam. Moreover, as we wrote in edition #185, China and Viet Nam witnessed a decrease in the domestic value added per unit of demand when they began assembling mobile phones. Companies preferred to import components, assemble, and then export them. Only after their electronics exports had achieved global scale did the two countries target local content addition.
And hence, we shouldn’t expect quick gains in the Indian case as well. Only after the assembly in India achieves some scale will local suppliers come up. In the Apple ecosystem, for instance, the Final Assembly Testing and Packaging (FATP) units run by the likes of Foxconn are the key nodes. Once they take root, it’s in their self-interest to develop a local supplier ecosystem to meet the unsparing demands of their product launch cycle.
Curiously, a terrible way for governments to reduce the import of components is to raise import tariffs further, a solution that the authors of the note would vehemently disapprove of.
Second, the note proposes that India should make its own chips. Manufacturing chips will help reduce the import bill, and that’s where the government’s semiconductor strategy comes in. However, the path to making a complicated leading-edge processor chip will perhaps take two decades. And to get there, the government would, in turn, need more PLIs and upfront capital investment in fabs. In fact, we should expect higher chip imports from China over the next decade until we have a semblance of chip manufacturing done here. Importing cheap chips from China is not a vulnerability.
In sum, I don’t see a rise in imports of components as an indication of the failure of the PLI, just as I don’t interpret the rise in mobile phone exports alone as an unqualified success.
HomeWork
Reading and listening recommendations on public policy matters
[Chapter] Don’t miss this chapter on isomorphic mimicry. An old classic.
[Podcast] On Puliyabaazi, MR Madhavan of PRS Legislative Research discusses all things Parliament. The part where we discuss the impending Lok Sabha constituency delimitation threw up a few interesting alternatives.
[Blog] Paul Cairney’s long-running blog Politics & Public Policy is a must-subscribe.
#213 The Mind Plays Tricks