Does Kerala’s Social Development deter its Economic Development?

The state of Kerala in Indian union occupies a distinguished position among its counter parts in the country in terms of development in social sector as well as in its tertiary sector. This phenomenon is widely known as ‘Kerala Model of Development’ in the literature. If we observe the Kerala economy and its society we can amply deduce an important element inherent to this lopsided system of development which is fundamentally feeding the same vicious circle of development. In other words, the Kerala economy with a social sector which is said to be highly developed resting on weak economic fundamentals itself is responsible for the continuation of this often unpleasant development trajectory over the years. Thus, in my view, the fact that social development in Kerala preceded the economic development of the state appears to be a curse in itself so far as the overall development of the state is concerned. For, a socially developed society, whether it be economically developed or not, will be highly conscious and sensitive to all sorts of other developments in that society. Let me note here one thing that the term ‘social development’ I have used here is in relative sense to other states rather than in absolute sense

However, given this socio-economic background of Kerala, when the state attempts to develop its economic fundamentals, say infrastructure development like widening of National Highway or building new airport, will  met with stiff opposition from the people. At the same time, in those states like Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra etc with relatively better economic fundamentals on the one hand and poor social sector on the other hand, would not have to face such opposition from the people in the context of building up the economy. What lies at the root of this kind of behavior on the part of the people? How do we economically justify this character? The underlying factor behind this sort of a behaviors on the part of Kerala society can be traced back to the very origin of the discipline of Economics- the trade off involved in the utilization of available scarce economic resources like land, water etc. Economics exists not only because resources are limited but also the limited resources have alternative uses which is known as trade off which implies that resources used for a particular purpose will not available for another purpose and hence a rationale economic agent like people must evaluate the cost and benefit of using a particular resource and the resources will only efficiently and optimally used when the net outcome (difference between cost and benefit) is positive or beneficial among alternative uses. That is why malayalees object to the all most all economically significant progarmmes and policies brought about not only by government but by private sector also. For, if you want to develop the economic base of Kerala, the people of the Kerala should be willing to make sacrifices on many fronts because of its geo-demographic peculiarities. For instance, Kerala is having high density of population compared to other states as the total geographical area of Kerala is narrow. Therefore, in the backdrop of given social, geographical, demographic and even anthropological peculiarities of the state of Kerala, when it implicitly indulge in the process of the assessment of pros and corns or the costs and benefits of a change as part of the process of strengthening its economy will turn out be negative implying the net-outcome will be against the very change proposed by the external forces like government. Thus, in my view, the envious social development that Kerala has achieved over the years remains to be a stumbling block in its own economic development. In other words, the social development of Kerala has empowered its citizens in all respects especially politically to with stand the forces of change which is against their interest, at least in the short run. Whereas as far other states whose economic development has preceded their social development are concerned, their citizens are neither in a position to make an informed evaluations of the resulting  cost and benefit of the changes suggested by external forces nor empowered to withstand such forces of change and therefore, the changes are often imposed rather than espoused. Thus, in that sense, social darkness that exists in such states is a benign rather than malign as far as the economic prosperity of such states are concerned in the long run. That is, the current generation bears the brunt of the changes brought about for the development of the society which will be helpful for the overall- social and economic- development of the future generations of such states. As far as the Kerala is concerned, since its current generation is no longer ready to absorb the sacrifices involved in the changes, its future generation will have to bear its brunt.  Thus social sector development of the malayalees on the one hand and the lopsided economic development pattern on the other hand is inextricably interlinked wherein the former keep on feeding the latter.

The economic reasoning I have drawn on here to comment on the Kerala’s economic and social experiences has got its resonance even abroad. Two things are worth mentioning here. First, according to American Intellectual, Seymour Martin Lipset, economic development via the mediating effect of social development in the form of increased education, social equality and changes in the class structure, will lead to the increased democratization of the society. Prof. Jagatish Bhagwati, in his book In Defense of Globalisation has interpreted this view of Lipset as that economic prosperity produces a middle class and this emerging middle class creates an effective demand for democratization of politics. From both these views it can be figured out that social development should be preceded by the economic development so that a pressure-group like middle class in terms of the economic endowment emerges to rectify the aberrations of the democracy from its true path. If so, why not interpret this otherwise that if economic development precedes that social development, then a mediocre social group in terms of the social endowment (instead of a middle class in terms of economic endowment as in the case of former) will be created and such a group will be working as resistant group to the forces of economic development. I think this could be what actually happened in the context of Kerala economy. The pattern of social and economic development experienced by Kerala was akin to what I have just described and therefore, Kerala society has seen a phenomenal growth of such a mediocre group in term of their social consciousness not compared to other states (as I noted in the outset) but compared to societies of advanced countries and it is essentially this mediocrity of the Kerala society which is responsible for the intolerance of malayalees to cope with the real costs associated with the new changes either in the form of policy or programmes to support its weak economy.  The current state of the affair in the higher education of the state also corroborates this perspective. Despite widely acclaimed achievements at the level of basic education compared to other states in India, Kerala’s higher education scenario is in pathetic condition today. Universities and other higher learning centers are being reduced to simply factories of degrees and certificates wherein a post-graduate who got educated throughout his/her career in English language find it impossible to write a single sentence in the same language without error.  In my view, this kind of pathetic situation in the higher education in the state which is said to be highly socially aware and alert, in a sense presents a paradox. And this paradox may be untangled through the above reasoning. That is, our mediocre nature in terms of our social awareness limits us to be concerned adequately and effectively about the quality deterioration of our higher education and therefore, it is left to the mercy of the destiny.

Second, Jagdish Bhagwati also explains in his book the contrast between the development experience of Russia and China by way of linking their experience with the thesis of Lipset. According to Bhagwati, Russia under Gorbachev opted for political freedom before economic restructuring including an end to autarky whereas China opted for economic change before undertaking democratization. Thus, Bhagwati observed that China’s enormous success and Russia’s astonishing failure have lead to many think both that democratization should follow, not precede, economic reforms and the prosperity and the middle classes that follow the success of economic reforms will indeed lead to democratization down the road. Thus, it is clear that the so called highly celebrated Kerala model of development is not something  alien as far as the global development experience is concerned and therefore, there is little to celebrate or fanfare on such a model as we have seen throughout last many decades. It remained to be an alien and something be clamored only for those who always look at the economics through the prism of statistics and percentages rather than entertaining the reality that economics cannot sensibly exist in isolation from politics, culture, sociology including anthropology. Therefore, I would like to conclude with the loose observation based on the above analysis that Kerala still continues to be an economically fragile and weak state with a developed social sector because of the inherent fallacy of the composition of the same development structure.