I felt more than a twinge of pride when I read that Professor Abhijit Banerjee had been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. Our Prime Minister was quick off the block to congratulate him for being awarded the “2019 Serviges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences” in memory of Alfred Nobel. The point subtly made, was that this, strictly speaking, was not one of the five Nobel prizes established in 1895. It was instituted in 1968 on the 300th anniversary of the Serviges Riksbank and awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, along the same principles applicable to the five original Nobel Prizes. This Academy also awards the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Physics. The Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute awards the Prize in Physiology or Medicine; the Swedish Academy grants the Prize in Literature; and the Norwegian Nobel Committee awards the Peace Prize. Hence for all intents and purposes it is considered to be a Nobel Prize, and debate on this issue is therefore irrelevant.
There were various reactions to the award ranging from the genuinely intellectual to the downright ridiculous. Authorities like Amartya Sen, Angus Deaton from Princeton, Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia, and James Hackman of Chicago Universities all expressed reservations over the use of Randomized Control Trials (RCT) in grassroots economics; such trials are commonly used to test drugs. Others hailed it as a ground breaking innovation that went against conventional wisdom. This fuelled academic discussion and debate, promoting expansion of knowledge; in sharp contrast to comments by ill-informed political leaders. A minister no less, stated that the BJP won the elections by rejecting Professor Banerjee’s left leaning views. This only provoked an amused reaction from the Nobel Laureate that he was flattered to know that the average voter even knew about him at the time of elections. A BJP national secretary declared that one needed to be married a second time to a foreign wife to be eligible for the prize; only exposing the gutter mentality existing in some quarters, and deserves to be treated with contempt. Criticisms that raged on social media arose purely from the fact that the opposition party had sought his advice on the NYAY scheme. Professor Banerjee pointed out that he had merely provided data for the scheme. Accusations that he fraternized with the opposition also reflect ignorance of the fact that the Professor had in the past collaborated with the Gujarat governments’ pollution control board under Modi, and the UP, Rajasthan and Mamata Banerjee governments amongst others. Hence, as he pointed out, the prizes awarded to the three were as professionals and not for any partisan economics. Leaving aside the debate on social media, most of which was just hot air anyway, I was quite fascinated by his views as declared in various interviews.
He was vilified for his criticism of some government policies. This overlooks the fact that he also approved of many policies. He is in favour of taxing the rich, approves of Ayushman Bharat, and believes that NREGA should be increased to revive the rural economy. He is a total non-believer as far as social media is concerned. To tackle the obsession with government jobs, he recommends a five-year assessment period for every appointee at the end of which the employee may or may not be confirmed depending on his performance. He believes this would weed out applicants who are there “just for the beer” as the English expression goes. To resolve the banking crisis, he suggests that the government reduces its stake to below 50%. His most charming put down was “politicization of a particular approach just because the practitioners’ beliefs align with a liberal stance is an intellectual sleight of hand”. I doubt his political critics even understood what he was saying.
But to me his most significant advocacy was that feedback on implemented policies helps evaluations, because evidence is valuable even if it is critical. As Raghuram Rajan puts it: suppressing criticism means no feedback, hence no course correction if necessary. For example, the RCT in Kenya established that it was intestinal worm infestation that kept children away from school rather than lack of textbooks. Distributing free bed nets for mosquitoes was more effective than selling them to the poor as they were more likely to use them and later buy replacements. Quality of life and well-being was more important than GDP numbers.
He has a rather colorful past. Originally from Bengal, he studied at Presidency College, Calcutta, and later at JNU. He spent ten days in Tihar jail in 1983 for an agitation at JNU. The Bengali connection is especially interesting because of my own background having been born there and spent the initial 27 years of my life in Kolkata, including studying briefly at the same Presidency College. What is it about Kolkata (Calcutta) and Nobel Prize winners? Five of the ten Indian Nobel Laureates’, in four of the six categories, have a Calcutta connection. First came Tagore, Literature, in 1913, the first non-European, non-white to win it; and intimately connected with the city. CV Raman, Science, followed in 1930; the first Asian science awardee. Though not from Calcutta, he did most of his work there as professor of physics at the Calcutta University. Then of course, came Mother Teresa, Peace, 1979. She started with 12 nuns in 1950, at the Missionaries of Charity home, a short walk from the medical college where I studied. Amartya Sen the Economics Nobel awardee in 1998 also studied at Presidency College (now University) in 1951. And now, Professor Banerjee, again in Economics and a native of Kolkata.
Surely this will fill any mature Indians heart with pride, especially Bengalis. On October 31, 2019, the Odisha government partnered with the Professors Jameel Poverty Action Lab. to minimise poverty. As they say, you can’t keep a good man down for long.
(The writer is a founder member of the Voluntary Health Association of Goa)
