A tribute to his dedication:Ashok Mitra

IT is an extremely pleasing moment that a friend like Amartya Sen has received what is still considered to be the topmost award for a professional social scientist. But I must admit to a feeling of resentment at the people who take decisions in such matters. First, the creative work for which Amartya has received plaudits was completed in the 1960s and 1970s. There was no reason why he should have been kept waiting so long.

This, however, is not surprising. The Nobel Committee spurned Michal Kalecki, Joan Robinson and Nicholas Kaldor. The decision on Amartya was at least a break with this tradition of ignoring non-conformists, and we should be grateful to the committee on account of that.

Perhaps the decision is not as honest as the committee has made it out to be. Two fairly nondescript economic statisticians who dabbled in the so-called miracle of derivative economics as applied to the stock markets were chosen for the award last year. These two were closely associated with the financial firm, Long Term Capital Management, which collapsed, leading to the loss of the life savings of hundreds of thousands of American households.

Part of the ignominy on account of this stock market fiasco also devolved on the Nobel Committee, which is why these reluctant journeymen have now chosen a development economist.

K. GAJENDRAN

But all this is in passing. Many of us have our private views about the motives behind the Nobel award and the ideologues who are closely associated with it. Nonetheless, our pleasure and delight at Amartya getting the award are altogether unadulterated. He has made the country proud.

As far as his economics goes, I still think that some of his best work was in theorising in the sphere of the optimal rate of savings, which led to the development of the social choice theory. The Impossibility Theorem of Kenneth Arrow I consider to be an altogether negative proposition. Amartya has turned it around and discovered possibilities among impossibilities.

His continuous affirmation of the need for public action in the epoch of globalisation is of tremendous significance. I have my differences with him on the construction of the so-called commodities and capabilities proposition because I have an uneasy feeling that the way he has presented the problem negates the aspects of income and asset distribution.

I also disagree with him on his pet notion that democracy has the special virtue of being an antidote to the possibility of famines in the poorer economies. You can have gross inefficiencies in the distribution of food and income in even the most impeccable of democracies.

But this is hardly the time to resuscitate such debates. Let me repeat that the award to Amartya is a tribute to his dedication to the science of economics and the fact that I more or less belong to his generation gives an extra dimension to my sense of satisfaction.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar