The issue of
extending lockdown or reopening of the economy continues to border on rhetoric
than substance. There are a few who hold an extreme view of complete reopening of
the economy while few advocate the lockdown. At times, it seems rather than the
individual judgment, it is the views of their ideological mentors sitting
thousands of miles away from the location that determines the views. In India,
many state governments notably ruled by the opposition parties are clamouring
for an extension of lockdown. This makes the usually vociferous right wing
activists on social media see red on any news of possible extension of the
lockdown. Their views that India needs to open up fully arises from the fact of
the need to oppose the views of the political left and so-called political
liberal.
The debate on the feasibility
of economy first or the health first has been discussed in this
post.
The analysis is underpinned on the
classical societal dilemmas of allocation of resources theorized through the
economics production possibility curve.
Yet, the current
discussion does not underpin on economic analysis but through rhetoric conveniently
based on their ideological predispositions. The conclusions are made, only the
means to justify the conclusions necessitate some alibi. It is no one’s case
that the lockdown must continue indefinitely. Some commentators have argued for
phased lifting of the lockdown with appropriate measures of social distancing
and personal safety. Some discussion on the same has been captured in this
post.
However, for any attempt to have planned
exit invites instant rejection scheme. To the economic first extremists, the
only solution is to open up the entire India. In fact, Mumbai and Delhi have to
open up while the hinterland can remain shut for months though the pandemic situation
might be completely under control in the hinterland. There is bound to be
difficulties in linking up industries and economy as one opens up district
wise. Some theoretical perspective has been offered in this
post.
In fact, perhaps many of them will have no answers for a question how will
India function if for instance, in an extreme scenario, cities like Mumbai,
Delhi or Bangalore are bombed out. Would it be still their case that India
cannot function and allow everyone to die or use the opportunity to allow
districts to become economic forces? In fact, in the current backdrop, the
recovery would have to be led by the hinterland away from the urban clusters.
Pointers towards the same have been analysed in this
post.
However, it
would be a matter of interest to decode the prospective motivations for the
current economy first analysis. It becomes more puzzling given the nature of
the rhetoric. There are a few who believe that given there are ‘lakhs’ of
deaths in India for multiple causes, there is no reason to panic over this.
Some of their posts on social media including Twitter explicitly point towards
the same. A few are impersonalising the deaths occurring due to the Wuhan flu.
Any anecdote of death and suffering is pointed to a macro picture of very low
fatality rate, more so given their persistent belief that cases are
undercounted by a large factor. There is a case not to practice woke but bordering
on the other extreme of political incorrectness does not warrant given the
circumstances. Apparently many of these voices are those who are likely to stay
home and free-ride on any accumulated herd immunity.
At times,
migrants looking for work are used as a bogey, but most migrants are going back
home not because of lack of work or even food but because of panic. They do not
want to die in a different place lonely and away from their family. There is air
of melancholy and anecdotal episodes indicate a desire in almost all migrants of
going back to their hometowns or villages till the pandemic subsides. In fact,
many organizations might suffer from labour shortage as the economy opens up
yet again.
Few theories
might explain the current approach in extremity in opposing extension of
lockdown. At one level, it is the perception of uncertainty and subjective
probabilities associated with it that creates the differences. An analysis of
the same has been attempted in this
post.
In the despair and despondency in the air, the scene reminds of the movie Day
After. One of the characters after days in the basement run to breathe what she
thinks is fresh air and blue sky yet hidden is the radiation that pervades the
environment and x-rays that are penetrating her without her knowing it. Yet, this
too is insufficient to explain the current issue.
For an analysis
one needs to dig into a managerial theory that has come to be known as Blake-Moulton
grid. While it was intended to analyse to managerial styles in an organization,
it can be repositioned to apply at macro level with economy or society as unit.
The model is centred on a grid comprising two attributed plotted along x and y
axis. The x-axis measures the managerial concern for production or output while
the y-axis measures the concerns for the people or the human labour input. They
are graded on a 9-point scale with one being the lowest and nine the highest. Those
oriented on x-axis are inclined about production irrespective of the conditions
of the people producing them. To those oriented on the y-axis, there is an extra-concern
for the labour and manpower inputs irrespective of the quantum of production.
In between those two, numerous combinations exist.
The extreme
advocacy of economy first represents what in the traditional managerial grid
model calls it the produce or perish model. The modern versions call it
dictatorial style. Implied is a least concern for health externalities either
to individual or family or society but what needs to happen is the production. It
is immaterial that people might die or suffer from Wuhan flu, but work cannot
stop. One is reminded of an incident in one of the major companies wherein a
labourer died when a machine fell on him, the engineers removed his body and
asked the others to continue working as if nothing happened. This is the style
which the economy first advocates at the extreme level wants. They might be
interested in firing on shoulders of some other causes but a separating equilibrium
of the lockdown is bringing this style into focus. As a matter of fact, Singapore
overlooked the working conditions in dormitories of foreign workers as long as
the production did not suffer. The current incidence of Wuhan flu can be
attributed to a great degree onto this managerial style visible in migrant
dormitories and quarters.
It is worth
reiterating hardly anyone is advocating a country club approach where
production is hardly a priority. The point being argued is building up the
production redundancies without sacrificing the health or risks associated with
the same. In the absence of clarity on long term externalities of the Wuhan
pandemic on individual health, a precautionary principle would be the right
course to follow. As such the government is on right track. The Swedish model
being touted by the right wing has its own price visible in the high death rate
in Sweden relative to its Scandinavian neighbours. The approach if replicated
in India will lead to loss of life in substantial numbers, a political suicide
for any government.
To those who
advocate unconditional economy first irrespective of the costs associated with
the same in the times of pandemic, it is the manifestation of the produce of
perish style that Blake and Moulton categorized some fifty odd years ago. To a
government however, there are multiple trade-offs that need to be executed at
various levels. Any boomerang would cost it big and set the mission to
eliminate or at least minimise the virus impact back by many man-years. So, on
balance, a combination of the two concerns have to be redressed and any
approach will in all probability factor in the same.
Comments
Post a Comment