Jobs, cronyism, and welfare

A lacklustre campaign throws up some differences in economic strategy ore than 10 days remain in this general election campaign, and it is fair to assume that few new issues will be raised in the time that remains.

It has been a relatively dull affair in comparison to many past elections; the personal popularity of the incumbent Prime Minister has perhaps led many to assume that there is no real challenge from the Opposition, thereby rendering the process less interesting. Recent claims that this election has become more competitive seem to have affected the markets and elements of the media discourse, but do not seem to be backed up by anything concrete.

Yet, even if this is not the most competitive general election of our lifetime, it is nevertheless worth unpacking some of the narratives to attempt to identify what, if any, economic issues are considered worthy of democratic debate.

The Congress' manifesto seemed to promise that some such debate might be opened. It was heavily populist compared to previous iterations of the party's platform. It promised major changes, for example, to India's reservations in jobs and educational institutions: an amendment to the Constitution that would remove the 50 per cent cap that currently exists on quotas, and additional quotas for the economically weaker sections of society. The focus on public sector jobs continued with the assurance that the party would fill "nearly 30 lakh vacancies" in the Union government and end the slow process of contractualisation within the state sector. The government's reforms to military recruitment, meant to reduce the Army's excess manpower, were also promised to end.