Myrdal’s mirror: The Asian Drama of ‘Soft States’
Gunnar Myrdal begins the preface to his classic work 'Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations' (henceforth AD), with the words “Books have their own destiny, even while they are being written and before they are published.” AD sure did, and within the decade after its publication in 1968, it gained the status of essential reading for all — scholars, students, policymakers — interested in the dynamic of development in the underdeveloped countries, in particular in South Asia.
Gunnar Myrdal (1898-1987) was a Swedish economist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974 together with Friedrich Hayek. Myrdal was educated at Stockholm University, where he earned a law degree in 1923 and a doctorate in economics in 1927. Myrdal became an associate professor at the Institute of International Studies in Geneva and later, Professor of Political Economy for 17 years, and of International Economy at Stockholm University; in 1967, he became Professor Emeritus.
AD is a classic, and the substance of the book speaks for itself. The book is important because the central idea that Myrdal raises is a fundamental one not just for economic development but for the broader rubric of political economy in the 21st century. This central idea is the concept of a ‘Soft State’, as relevant today as it was more than half a century ago. In Myrdal’s words, “By the term ‘Soft State’, I mean to characterise a general lack of social discipline in underdeveloped countries, signified by many weaknesses: deficiencies in their legislation, and in particular in law observance and enforcement; lack of obedience to rules and directives handed down to public officials on various levels; frequent collusion of these officials with powerful persons or groups of persons whose conduct they should regulate; and at bottom, a general inclination of people in all strata to resist public controls and their implementation. Also within the concept of the Soft State is corruption, a phenomenon that seems to be generally on the increase…”
The main thrust of his argument in AD is the need to understand fully the social-political context and cultural dimensions in economic analysis and policymaking. This comes through unequivocally in his characterisation of the ‘Soft State’ as one in which the ruling elite, and its corruption, constitute the shadow that falls between the idea and the reality of welfare, and between formulation and implementation of policy. The ‘Soft State’ is a lasting theme in AD, and he concluded that without much more social discipline and respect for the rule of law, countries like India will face innumerable difficulties and true development and welfare will be delayed.
It is important not to interpret Myrdal’s analysis in moralistic terms. The lack of social discipline in India is not “because of any inherent evil of the people”, but the result of a history of considerable laxity in the observance of obligations, and the presence of much arbitrariness. In pre-independence India, obligations typically fell to the lot of the poor. Cruelty to the lower strata was often accompanied by petty obstructionism and indiscipline amongst this group, and indulgence by the privileged groups in sub-optimal performance, inefficiency, and corruption.
Myrdal points out that the colonisation of India “led to a general decline in village organisation without the emergence of a viable substitute, resulting in the weakening of the indigenous system of rights and obligations, laws, and procedures. Within such a system, people are accustomed to being ordered about, but also to getting away with as much as they can.”
In the last decades before India’s independence, the freedom struggle came to be synonymous with disobedience of and non-cooperation with the colonial government. The consequence has been the legacy of more anarchic attitudes which the post-independence indigenous governments found turned against them.
On the whole, the need for greater discipline amongst all -- politicians, officials, community leaders, and citizens alike -- is systematically avoided in public discourse. Resort is instead taken to inducements of various kinds -- exhortation, electoral promises, freebies, and subsidies. This policy of relying almost exclusively on the carrot rather than the stick can only be explained as making a virtue of a vice.
Such a legacy, combined with weak administrations shot through with much corruption, will understandably not strengthen a system of community obligations. Yet from the point of view of modernisation, a system of greater adherence to our societal obligations is an obvious need.
Some books never age. AD asserts the kind of truth that fits the objective reality as it actually exists. When you read Myrdal, the irony cannot be missed -- how little we have changed as a people and a society. He could well have been writing about India’s society and polity of today. Then you wonder: For how long will we remain Myrdal’s ‘Soft State’?