About Development, Politics and Economics

People in their ordinary business of life are not concerned with bigger questions that any academic discipline studies. Why would a craftsman or a trader bother about philosophical justification of morality or whether life beyond is possible or about their role in achieving larger political, social and economic goals. To an ordinary man what matters is their food shelter and clothing , which they get doing their work day and night, day and night , seasons and places , years and ages. Beyond this what matters to them is the social , human values in the small social circle that they are a part of — the respect they command in the circle, the time they spend with their family and friends. And this circle continues and has been so since human civilization began. But some people, step out of the ordinary life and dwell upon bigger questions; which then drives the rest of humanity into progress. Benefit of their thoughts and reasoning the rest reaps. Look at Aristotle , & Euclid and Pythagoras and Homer from the ancient Greece and how their knowledge benefited the sailors in the seas and the traders in their trade. And look at the ancient rhisis of India , on their immense thought on the philosophical question of life and about human emotions and deeds and how they game humanity the direction of dharma — a way of leading life. Newton, Einstein, Hawkins, Gandhi, Chomsky dwelling on questions of larger domain brought progress to humanity and to ordinary beings leading their ordinary life.

So, after being convinced about why should one, out of ordinary life take so much pain as to think and study , let us look at the discipline of economics and how it studies development and its relation with politics.

Development is the center of discussion in Economics. Analogous to several other domains, understanding the very definition of the central question is also a matter of debate. Say, a cosmologist studying about black hole can’t properly define what is a black hole, or , a linguist can’t give a clear definition of language, but despite this, academic studies are very successful at revealing their desired properties. Say, a black hole has infinite mass, language is a mode of communication. Similarly, although no precise definition of development can be laid out but we know what its desired properties must be — better living standards for all, equity, happiness etc.

Now comes the question of how? How do we achieve something that is desired. And with it also comes the question of where do we stand in terms of achieving those desired properties. Economic discipline has developed a number of indicators for that purpose. On the question of how- we study cases of someone who has attained the desired and of those who utterly lacks behind and the causes behind them.

The list of questions concerning development is never ending. How to sustain development? What to do about the undesired cost that it brings along (pollution , inequality).

Relation between politics and economic development

Political theory is more concerned about larger societal ideologies and value like , liberalism, of nationalism and communism; values that desire for society at large. Some of it might be in line with developmental goals. Say both aim for better standard of living , or one may say economic development is one of the things that politics desires, but politics don’t directly dwell upon how to achieve economic development as rigorously as economic discipline does.

Now coming back to the question of development, what should be the sequence of study-

1. What are the developmental goals to be achieved and what are its indicators?

2. How has the understanding of these goals evolved over time and where does it stands now?

3. How the unraveling of the darker side of development ( pollution, environmental degradation, rising inequality) changes the viewpoint of looking at development?

4. What developmental goals are desired now?

1. How can developmental goals be achieved?

2. What should be the policies to develop poor countries?

3. How does the changed notion of development changes the developmental policies in developed nations?

4. How to make sure that development occurs with minimal negative consequences?

To the first question of second part (How can developmental goals be achieved?), economics answers it with the ideas of free market, free international trade, independent financial system and so on. Economics further gives evidences of how these actually bring about welfare and other desired developmental goals and also now tries to remedy the negative externalities that it brings with it.

A free market answer to developmental goals, goals which politician also desire, don’t gulp down the throat easily. A free market goes with the liberal political ideology and hence is opposed by the conservative.Thus now the economic discipline tries to incorporate opposing political ideology; looking at the economic perspective of their solution. Key ideas of communism and marxism by enlarge political ideology but they also try to answer the central question of economic development in their own way. They also highlight the other side of development and its link with other goals, which needs to be mended.These political ideology but lack the economic understanding of how the developmental goals can be achieved and suggest political method of evolution, governance and likewise to achieve them, and hence not thinking about the problem and solution in the direct manner.The discipline of economic provide much more nearer answer of how the development goals can be achieved irrespective of what political means one choose to do so.Its is thus we see conflicts between political ideology and economics ways-between globalization, free trades that of immigration ban.Take for example the question of security which may be comprised considering free movement of people or the motion of globalization conflicting with the ideas of national cultural and legacy. But then economics solution are not inherently opposed to political goals.They are independent of anything but what they were meant to achieve.But such conflicting picture of economics and politics bring another set of question into life- how to align economic goals with social and political goals. At the same time some conflicting political goals need to be rethought about as well. After all you cannot achieve the goal of employment as well as reduce international trades simultaneously, which is what politicians fail to understand.

The strength of the economics theories of free market lies in its study of the microeconomics consumer and producer and that of macro level market and industrial organizations.

Thus it is in the well being of all to know more of Economics and for some to think about it deeply for the benefit of humanity.