India cannot afford to continue with the urban-industrialization model that has created global crises
“The key reform the Indian economy requires is a reform of the design and governance of a business enterprise. Workers, whether on farms or in factories, must be the owners of the enterprises in which they work so that they earn the profits made from their work and increase their own wealth, rather than passing on the profits to increase the wealth of financial investors. The capital assets required in the production process — machines in the manufacturing enterprise and the land for farms — must belong to the workers in the enterprise. Workers should be their own employers and not be compelled to become employees in factories and farms owned by stock market investors and feudal landlords.”
Faster GDP growth will not improve the well-being of India’s billion-plus citizens. For the past 25 years, the Indian economy has created less employment with each unit of GDP growth than other large countries. We have the largest population of youth in the world, seeking employment with good wages.

India’s policymakers are in a dilemma. Too many people, they say, are working in the agriculture sector. Therefore, according to them, the productivity of India’s farm sector, measured by the number of people employed in it, is also too low. They would rather have more people being moved out of rural areas and farms — and small, ‘informal’, manufacturing and service enterprises — into cities, and into large, ‘formal’ factories and service enterprises.
The problem is that large formal enterprises are not creating enough secure jobs with decent wages. They are unwilling to absorb more people, pay them higher wages and provide them with social security. Instead, they want more ‘flexible’ labor laws to keep wage costs down. The core problem of the Indian economy is that employers in all sectors (manufacturing, services and agriculture) are using more machinery, and more technology — instead of human beings — to increase their output and productivity.
The key reform the Indian economy requires is a reform of the design and governance of a business enterprise. Workers, whether on farms or in factories, must be the owners of the enterprises in which they work so that they earn the profits made from their work and increase their own wealth, rather than passing on the profits to increase the wealth of financial investors. The capital assets required in the production process — machines in the manufacturing enterprise and the land for farms — must belong to the workers in the enterprise. Workers should be their own employers and not be compelled to become employees in factories and farms owned by stock market investors and feudal landlords. They should have the choice of how they will use profits from their work: whether to invest further in their enterprise or invest in their family welfare and their children’s education.
Reforms of land ownership that transferred land from landlords to the erstwhile workers on farms caused small farmers’ incomes to grow much faster in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China than in India in the last 50 years, explains Mike Bird in The Land Trap: A New History of the World’s Oldest Asset. Bird explains why reforms progressed faster in other countries than in India. Vested interests came in the way of reforms in all countries. However, the leaders in those nations supported the rights of farmer-workers not the capitalist-owners. With reforms, small farmers’ incomes and wealth increased, and they invested more in the education of their children. It is noteworthy that farm output and agricultural productivity also increased without forcing people off farms.
Economists and business people must rethink the value of ‘scale’ in enterprises. Large-scale production of a standardized commodity — whether widgets in a factory or a monocrop on a large farm — increases economic efficiency by enabling the use of large machines and employment of low-skill workers to perform repetitive tasks. Large-scale enterprises can afford to deploy capital in machines and artificial intelligence. Thereby, they need less human labor and intelligence. While their efficiency and output may go up, and productivity too (measured as output per human being employed), such enterprises employ fewer humans. They contribute to the ‘jobless’ GDP growth of the economy.
Small farms that grow a variety of food organically have a greater ‘scope’ of production on the farm. Waste becomes a useful input on the farm itself, especially on farms that also have animals. Farms with more scope are naturally more sustainable. Materials and energy circulate within and around such small farms which have less scale but more scope.
Environmental scientist Vaclav Smil has computed the total system requirements of hydrocarbon energy and other non-renewable inputs in modern industries, food production and distribution systems, and in global transportation systems. In his book, How the World Really Works, he explains that the modern and technologically intensive large-scale food production and distribution system is the largest polluter of the soil, water and the atmosphere. He also explains that small-scale farms with more scope are the best scientific solutions for environmental sustainability.
The problem, he points out, is that this solution requires more people to live and work in rural areas, and engage in smaller agriculture, manufacturing and service enterprises. This will require a reversal of migration from urban/formal enterprises to rural/informal ones. Citizens in advanced countries will not accept this. India should not have as much of a problem as other nations, because it already has the largest number of people living and working in rural areas — the very problem our economists are struggling to solve!
Faster GDP growth will not improve the well-being of India’s billion-plus citizens. For the past 25 years, the Indian economy has created less employment with each unit of GDP growth than other large countries. We have the largest population of youth in the world, seeking employment with good wages.
With the present pattern of growth, India’s GDP must grow at 12 per cent per annum for the next few years to generate enough employment. Each unit of GDP growth is also causing more pollution and environmental degradation than in other countries. Therefore, India cannot afford to continue following the urban-industrialization model of growth that has created global environment and inequality crises.
The pattern of growth must change for our nation to become a livable and sustainable ‘Viksit Bharat’. Rather than the goal of climbing higher than other countries on the GDP ladder, India’s economic reformers should reform the process of economic growth itself.
We must find our own way; a more inclusive and environmentally sustainable way; a more ‘family’ and ‘community’ way — a more ‘Gandhian way’ — to build our nation and strengthen our economy for it to deliver poorna swaraj (complete political, social and economic freedom) for all citizens. This was the ‘tryst with destiny’ towards which we had set out on August 15, 1947, when India became a sovereign nation responsible for its own future.
(Arun Maira is a management consultant and former member of Planning Commission of India. He is also a former chairman of Boston Consulting Group, India)







“India is bound together as a great nation by the strength and stability of its democracy, the rule of law and a breath-taking diversity of its populace in terms of religion, language, culture, climate, history, geography and more.”