In contrast the victory of the UPA in 2009, after a five-year period in which most economists criticised the government for not doing anything significant on economic reform, is being seen by some as a vindication of the electorate’s aversion to market-friendly economics.

Unfortunately, such a conclusion is much too simplistic and mostly incorrect. For one, all these election outcomes were determined by a multiplicity of factors, and not just the singular issue of economic policy, or even the state of the economy. But for the sake of argument, even if one assumed that market-friendly reforms were the core issue, it isn’t clear that the outcomes were a rejection of such reform.

Perhaps the singular focus on market-friendly reform until 2004 — while speeding up growth and opportunity — seemed to have ignored the enormous public appetite for effective policies of redistribution.

Manmohan Singh, with the wisdom of hindsight, had in fact gone on record (in the late ’90s) to express regret over the fact that spending on social sectors was cut significantly (with the objective of a stable macroeconomy) during his innings as Narasimha Rao’s finance minister. The NDA government may have also missed a similar trick. The Vajpayee-led government did some terrific work, particularly on improving infrastructure (telecom and roads progressed very rapidly, to the benefit of all), but again did little purposively to redistribute or spend towards the most deprived sections. Similar tales can be told about S.M. Krishna and Chandrababu Naidu who did plenty to industrialise their states, but forgot that farmers were committing suicide in large numbers. It seems obvious that in a country where 800 million people live on less than $2 a day, redistribution will be a major voter concern.

... contd.