Hey guys, love this newsletter and really enjoying the topics you guys are picking week after week. I havnt read the Niti Aayog discussion paper on 'One nation one election', but going by Pranay's analysis, two questions come to mind immediately -
1. The argument that developmental time is lost due to elections is valid if we look at two aspects - one, a change of Government and the resulting uncertainty about the fate of a particular scheme on program (getting scrapped, or budgets getting diverted/allocated with some delay) and two, the diversion of manpower in the form of government school teachers as well as the entire district machinery towards conducting the elections which begins much earlier than the model code of conduct. That said, I still don't get the paper's point on how one nation one election will solve this problem by merely making it happen for the entire country at the same time.
2. The point on how election expenditure is a minuscule proportion of India's GDP could be better emphasized by providing a context in the form of a comparative against similar ratios from other developing countries and/or against expenditure on a government scheme or for that matter a scam as a percentage of GDP. Are there any benchmarks for how much a country should typically spend on elections because I feel that would help make a stronger argument.
1. On 1, I agree. There are opportunity costs in the current schema but one nation, one election is not going to make them go away. In fact, it will add more costs because in case a government falls before five years, you'll have lame-duck governments until the next round of the simultaneous election which might stall developmental work further. An easier solution is to modify the model code of conduct.
On 1a, that uncertainty is not all that undesirable. We would want people to have the ability to vote out a government as quick as possible if they do not like a particular scheme.
On 1b, yes, no getting around this one. Simultaneous elections will help in this limited way that all the people will be engaged on fewer occasions than they are now.
2. On 2, I will read up on this but my intuition is that comparative analyses would need to normalise for income levels, path dependence etc. to make a stronger case. The costs to the government in the Indian case is easily comparable. Lok Sabha elections cost 3,470 cr once every five years which is ~1/20th the annual expenditure on MGNREGS. It's the spending that parties and candidates do outside the limits that are a problem. Simultaneous election will not help change those incentives.
Hey guys, love this newsletter and really enjoying the topics you guys are picking week after week. I havnt read the Niti Aayog discussion paper on 'One nation one election', but going by Pranay's analysis, two questions come to mind immediately -
1. The argument that developmental time is lost due to elections is valid if we look at two aspects - one, a change of Government and the resulting uncertainty about the fate of a particular scheme on program (getting scrapped, or budgets getting diverted/allocated with some delay) and two, the diversion of manpower in the form of government school teachers as well as the entire district machinery towards conducting the elections which begins much earlier than the model code of conduct. That said, I still don't get the paper's point on how one nation one election will solve this problem by merely making it happen for the entire country at the same time.
2. The point on how election expenditure is a minuscule proportion of India's GDP could be better emphasized by providing a context in the form of a comparative against similar ratios from other developing countries and/or against expenditure on a government scheme or for that matter a scam as a percentage of GDP. Are there any benchmarks for how much a country should typically spend on elections because I feel that would help make a stronger argument.
Cheers!
Hi Mehak, thanks for reading and engaging.
1. On 1, I agree. There are opportunity costs in the current schema but one nation, one election is not going to make them go away. In fact, it will add more costs because in case a government falls before five years, you'll have lame-duck governments until the next round of the simultaneous election which might stall developmental work further. An easier solution is to modify the model code of conduct.
On 1a, that uncertainty is not all that undesirable. We would want people to have the ability to vote out a government as quick as possible if they do not like a particular scheme.
On 1b, yes, no getting around this one. Simultaneous elections will help in this limited way that all the people will be engaged on fewer occasions than they are now.
2. On 2, I will read up on this but my intuition is that comparative analyses would need to normalise for income levels, path dependence etc. to make a stronger case. The costs to the government in the Indian case is easily comparable. Lok Sabha elections cost 3,470 cr once every five years which is ~1/20th the annual expenditure on MGNREGS. It's the spending that parties and candidates do outside the limits that are a problem. Simultaneous election will not help change those incentives.