We studied the ‘Kuznets Hypothesis’ or Kuznets's proposition during our student days, which is a rather fascinating bourgeois strategy. The proponent of this idea was Simon Kuznets, an economist who won the Nobel Prize in 1971. The core argument of this theory is that income inequality at the early stages of development or growth is not a cause for concern; inequality will initially increase rather than decrease, and there are long explanations as to why. However, once growth reaches its peak, income inequality will start to decline. This is called the 'Inverted U Hypothesis.'

Therefore, the policy recommendation is that if inequality is rising, let it rise—don’t worry, equality will eventually be achieved. In other words, let the cake grow first, then think about distribution. If you try to eat it now, no one will have anything and everyone will starve; instead, let a few people become rich, invest, and create jobs, and eventually, everyone will get something through the 'trickle-down effect.'

'GDP is growing fast, so inequality will also increase, which is normal and even necessary. If the incomes of those at the top rise, savings and investment will increase.' Needless to say, many countries have formulated policies based on this theory, and Bangladesh is no exception. If someone points to Bangladesh’s recent developments as a prime example proving the fallacy of this theory, it would be hard to blame them.

II
However, critics have not found any straightforward economic logic behind the idea that inequality is necessary for income growth, nor does this notion hold up based on the practical experiences of various countries. Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen is strongly opposed to this mindset. He argues that in many countries, incomes have risen rapidly while inequality has decreased simultaneously.

For example, Sen points out that during the Meiji Restoration in Japan in the latter half of the 19th century, income growth accelerated, and the rulers decided to quickly make everyone literate, achieving this within 40 years. Health services were also expanded, and income inequality did not increase during that time. In South Korea, rapid growth occurred from the 1960s, but inequality also declined. In short, the idea that economic growth cannot occur without inequality is baseless and unacceptable, according to this economist.
Many sociologists believe that democracy and rapid growth do not go hand in hand—they see their relationship as antagonistic. But this is a false notion. First, there is no causal relationship between these two factors. Second, as seen in India, the growth that has occurred has happened under democratic rule.

III
In an interview, Amartya Sen’s words are relevant for Bangladesh as well: 'Make in India will only be possible when we have the capability to "make" things. In our country, there are mainly three sectors producing goods that we can export to the global market. One is pharmaceuticals, meaning medicines, which are produced by highly skilled workers—those who are essentially the "first boys" and "first girls" of our country. Then there’s information technology (IT), which also involves the same group. The third is auto parts, motor vehicle components, which we can mechanically produce well. Japan or China, on the other hand, can produce thousands of items because their workers are educated. If they are told to maintain the quality of a product in a certain way, they can do it. Without basic education, that is simply not possible. So, where we demonstrate proficiency in three sectors, the Chinese can do so in nearly four thousand sectors. If you look for the difference, you’ll find that behind it are our lack of education, inequality, lack of health, and inequality in healthcare.

IV
The terms 'reform' or 'radical change' used in the current anti-inequality movement in Bangladesh were present in various ways in Amartya Sen's thoughts: 'A significant gap within society, a clear division of "us" and "them," has grown... If someone like us breaks a law and is afraid of being arrested by the police, we can immediately contact a prominent lawyer or a known district magistrate, and the problem won’t seem too big. But for many people, this is a huge problem. If they are taken into police custody, there is no way out. I don’t think enough thought has been given to their problems.'

Amartya Sen believes that this gap is perhaps the most harmful to democracy. The potential of democracy is not being realized. He writes, 'Those who are taking advantage of many opportunities in the name of ordinary people are far from ordinary. It is becoming increasingly difficult to draw attention to the widespread neglect of education, health, and social security for truly ordinary people. For instance, many people believed that LPG subsidies were meant for ordinary people. But most ordinary people do not even have the opportunity to use LPG. I remember, in 1952-53, my friend and colleague Mrinal Datta-Chaudhuri was involved in collecting data for the National Sample Survey. I accompanied him to listen to the questions being asked. It was a very poor settlement, probably in the Kalutola area. As per the NSS rules, a question was asked: "Do you have a refrigerator in your home?" "Do you have an air conditioner?" What I remember most is that the head of one household, having never heard the word "air conditioner," replied, "I’m not sure if we have one, I’ll have to ask my wife!"'

V
The ongoing anti-inequality movement, which calls for reforms and has led to the formation of six commissions, stems from inequality—the growth-inclusive policies and strategies that are supposedly linked to it. The Kuznets Hypothesis has been detrimental to us. By not giving education, health, and social sectors their due importance, the growth-driven development strategy has backfired. Since independence, especially since the late 1970s, the dominant philosophy of growth and development has been 'grow the cake first, then distribute.' In trying to grow that cake, issues like loan defaults, corruption, the absence of democracy, and misgovernance have become entrenched. The current income and wealth inequality, religious divisions, and social decay indicate that if inclusive growth and development with equal opportunities for all had been pursued, Bangladesh’s progress story might have been different, and development could have been sustainable. It would be hard to claim that the situation in our neighboring countries is much better. The reason is the same: income inequality is seen as the primary driver of growth.

VI
Therefore, there is strong belief that Bangladesh will move toward an equality-driven development strategy based on the recommendations of the six commissions formed for 'radical change.' There, the philosophy will not be 'some will eat, while others won’t,' but instead, 'everyone will get to eat, more or less.' Not Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian, but everyone will be Bangladeshi. The state apparatus will stand for the oppressed, and the distinctions between man and woman, gentleman and commoner, will be forever erased.

Footnote
A French gentleman learned Bengali and asked a Bengali friend why people say 'boit-toit' in Bengali, wondering where the extra 'toit' comes from. His friend replied, 'Well, it's not said by gentlemen, but by commoners!'

The writer is an economist, former Vice-Chancellor of Jahangirnagar University

BDST: 1131 HRS, SEPT 19, 2024
MN