What is the price ORF is willing to pay for a policy? 
The piece says “The reforms that have so incensed protesters go further in addressing Indian agriculture’s most intractable problems than any previously contemplated. Those changes need to be protected, not abandoned.”
And “What’s at risk isn’t just a couple of laws, but India’s commitment to the transition to a more environmentally sustainable and equitable growth model.”
The piece still doesn’t explain how the laws benefit farmers. And are they really so myopic that they will not understand their own interests? The piece says the messaging on the laws has been the problem,ie, folks haven’t understood it.
I would be very grateful if they could get a farmer to do a hot take on this issue. I would much rather hear from them directly. Th is piece makes it sound like they’re only protecting the status quo because it works for them. Well, who doesn’t?
And I don’t know how people can still talk about “equitable growth” models with a straight face. Hasn’t this whole experience with neoliberalism told us that wealth creation comes at a huge social cost- rising inequality?
But then we’ve got an economic survey that details the argument about “is perfect equality optimal?” Almost arguing that according to economists, it may not be because of disincentives to work.
My opposition to the laws is more rooted in security concerns. Destabilizing a status quo comes at a huge price especially when there’s a prior history of conflict in a region. Policies can reignite fault lines and this has to be taken into consideration.
People, their histories and identities cannot be absented from policy making. And unfortunately economists do that a lot- viewing everyone as an economically sensitive agent and not as a political person.
ORF produces a lot of good work but these questions have to be asked even to those who are doing their jobs. And we need more corporate-free think tanks.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
