Media should demand more evidence from experts

Optimism is a rare trait, especially amongst the ‘intelligentsia’. This is acutely the case with sections of the Indian intelligentsia, which forever ignore the many positives and only zoom on selectively sampled negatives. Indian intelligentsia must recognise that ordinary non-Indians, even parliamentarians and business leaders, rely on the opinions of credible experts to learn about India. They inevitably turn to academics employed in globally-reputed universities and organisations for impartial advice. Given that this responsibility is entrusted to Indian intelligentsia, have they fulfilled it? To most, it is stunningly obvious that politics often masquerades as ‘expert’ commentary provided by Indian intelligentsia.As a recent example of politics masquerading as expert commentary, take the claim that Sri Lanka’s economic crisis is because of their persecution of Tamils decades back. Start with some key facts. First, worker remittances and tourism together account for almost 30% of Sri Lanka’s GDP and contribute the most to their foreign exchange reserves. Second, in 2018, tourism provided $4.4bn in earnings while remittances equalled $7bn. Third, Sri Lankan foreign debt obligations for this year are about $7bn. Economists are taught to use the ‘what if scenario’ to infer causality. What if Covid had not happened? Neither the nosedive in tourism revenues nor only $1.5bn of inward remittances for the half-year ending June would have manifested. But for Covid, tourism would have added about $5bn in earnings in 2020, 2021 and 2022 while inward remittances would have added another $4bn in 2022. A cumulative addition of $19bn to reserves would have been substantial as Sri Lanka’s forex reserves hovered around $8bn from 2018 to 2020. Moreover, the $7 billion of foreign debt obligations this year would have easily been paid. Thus, but for Covid, the current crisis would not have manifested with or without the genocide of Tamils decades back. In sum, the current economic crisis has nothing to do with Sri Lanka’s treatment of minorities. * Every economic expert understands the difference between correlation and causality. * Yet, this distinction is ignored to inappropriately extrapolate onto India an incorrect correlation of a genocide with the current economic situation. * The expert abuses this distinction between correlation and causality knowing fully well that the common person does not understand this nuance. medium94866618Next, consider farm reform as another instance of politics masquerading as expert commentary. Across sectors, be it airlines, telecom, banking or mutual funds, greater competition – be it among buyers or among sellers – has genuinely increased welfare of all stakeholders. Yet, the unimpeachable principle that greater competition enhances welfare, which every economist teaches in his/her class and for which there is compelling evidence in India, was abandoned.The notion that the criticism stemmed from concern about the process of implementing the farm reform is a fig leaf. Ask the question: If the UPA government had brought this farm reform in the same manner, would this intelligentsia not have cheered that they had advocated these reforms in their writings? Or that the poll-promise made in the 2019 Congress manifesto was being implemented? Some important lessons emerge. * First, scholars and experts are trusted because society delegates to them the responsibility of discerning and explaining the nuances. In return for this trust and privilege, society demands that scholars and experts adhere to a strict moral compass. * Second, evaluate the message independent of the messenger. Albert Einstein – no less – dismissed quantum mechanics arguing that “God does not play dice.” If the messenger were equated to the message, quantum mechanics may have been stillborn. * Highlighting the dangers of not focusing on the message, Friedrich von Hayek said in his Nobel acceptance speech: “Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess. This does not matter in the natural sciences. Here the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly an influence on his fellow experts; and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But the influence of the economist is an influence over laymen: Politicians, journalists, civil servants, and the public generally.” * So, rather than enabling echo chambers based on the messenger, economics in India must learn from the natural sciences to encourage competition in the market for ideas. The epic tussle quantum mechanics witnessed between Neils Bohr and Einstein illustrates such competition in the natural sciences. Competition in the market for economic ideas is only possible if print and television media demand robust evidence from experts irrespective of their reputation. First, media need to recruit more individuals with deep understanding of economics so that they can robustly question the expert peddling snake oil as expert commentary. Second, media professionals also must learn to ignore ‘halo effects’ that develop on successful economists. If Einstein could be wrong, any famous economist can be wrong. Learn to play the ball not the bowler. After all, even Shane Warne bowled bad deliveries. Imbibing these lessons will benefit India enormously because the trust and status that society gives experts and institutions will be well earned then. The writer was Chief Economic Adviser, GoI and is Professor at ISBIllustration: Chad Crowe