a.dipping growth (if we correct for the overestimation and the manipulation ) ,
c. the Level of Foreign reserves failing to provide a sizeable buffer to potential external shocks,
d. elevated levels of the consolidated budget deficits (inclusive of the special funds as well as disguised loans and equity transactions)
e. unsustainable public sector debt ( excluding the consolidation adjustment and including the Rs 25 billion to Air Mts) and
f. runaway inflation peaking at 10.8%, one of the highest since 1990.
Voters have to know how it will be different under a PTR-MMM-ND government. Following the shortfall in tax revenue from petroleum and real estate taxes , what are the revenue enhancement measures that will be taken ? How must reduction in inefficient spending-fraud, waste and corruption -can be expected ? What will be impact on the budget balance, the level of public debt and so on.
Do we have to wait for of a Fiscal Responsibility Act to see a more responsible govt ? They have to convince us that we can presently afford such welfarism, that’s the main issue, everything else is mere bla-blas !
P.Dinan sums it up in his interview in today's Week End…”Nous sommes en train de déveloper un welfare state dont nous n’avons pas les moyens économiques de financer”
Competitive welfarism is an important development in a country where the gains of growth have accrued largely to a few. Such welfarism suits the status quoits. They prefer to tinker with the present system than question the present economic model, the nature of our democracy or acknowledge the project of advancing constitutional guarantees and specific citizen rights to housing, to employment, to a minimum level of income for e.g. The harsh reality is that our economic growth model is simply unable to create opportunities for most Mauritians.
Yamini Aiyar of the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, notes that “ such welfarism -a form of techno-patrimonialism -strips itself of any emancipatory goals such as advancing social citizenship and building solidarity. Instead, it casts citizens as passive recipients of state largesse rather than active claim-making, rights-bearing actors. This form of welfare is critical to politics of the contemporary moment, where political power is increasingly manufactured through the deification of the leader(s) and unbridled voter loyalty extracted through welfare benefits.”
Some social researchers have also found out that “ the compensatory logic of welfare actively disengages welfare policy from the dynamics of the labour market. Instead, it shifts public spending away from goals of expanded economic opportunity via productive inclusion and the use of public resources to provide public and merit goods, and doubles down on welfare investments as a "compensation" for those left out via all kinds of benefits and transfers. “
This compensatory logic does not prioritise investments in human capital or the emancipation of labour by enhancing their bargaining power, because it does not concern itself with responding to the structural conditions of the labour market. Instead, it uses fiscal policy to transfer public finances to citizens as compensation. This leaves the welfare system vulnerable to charges of 'freebies' and fiscal profligacy.
Crucially, it strips the welfare discourse of any serious engagement with questions of redistribution and solidarity.
How is it different from other social welfare models ?
Yamini makes the distinction that “ In the Scandinavian countries we saw the emergence of a negotiated bargain between labour and capital with a mobilised working class at the roots of its origin. Or indeed the conservative Anglo-Saxon welfare regimes that sought to offer meagre, means-tested benefits but were seriously committed to full employment. …and in the productivist welfare regimes of East Asia, they sought to invest seriously in human capital – health and education – with the explicit goal of mobilising productive capability of the labour force for economic growth. Participation in the economy, rather than decommodification (protection from market dependence), was the driving force shaping welfare."
However, in an electorally competitive democracy with a structurally skewed economy, the compensatory logic offers a tantalising alternative to politicians who need to respond to voter needs.
Competitive welfarism is not a substitute for a new model of development for the country.
