The Dialectics of Motivation and Action: A Look into the ‘Why’ of the “Kerala Model”

Pillai N., Vijayamohanan (2018): The Dialectics of Motivation and Action: A Look into the ‘Why’ of the “Kerala Model”.

Abstract

The so-called “Kerala Model” had generated a lot of energy in both academic and political circles in diverse degrees of appreciation and apprehension. The present paper argues that it was the political will that prevailed over the constraints of economic capability in bringing about wonders in Kerala. This political will sums up the spirit of public action, involving both the demand and supply forces: organized public demand and willing state provision. And this in turn is made possible by a historical conjunction of complementary interaction between an objective enabling environment and a subjective receptivity, the motivations of the agents, here the state and the public, to act. Kerala today presents a positive organic system of interactive development forces – a sort of cumulative causation through a ‘chain interaction’: human development → economic growth → further human development. The initial objective reality in Kerala, to be precise, in the then princely States of Travancore and Cochin, corresponded to a state of flux in which the old order was fast falling under the pressure of the social-economic changes brought about by monetisation and commercialisation, nascent industrialisation and proletarianization of the working mass. The freedom struggle imparted the inevitable political dimension to this flux. Interacting in/with this objectivity condition in a complementary coupling is the motivational receptivity of the agents to development.

Given the absence of an analytical interpretation of this dynamic process, the present author sought to explore the ‘how’ of this development in 2003 in terms of a human rights perspective of ‘norms-rights transition process’ through public action: norms are progressively realised on a time-bound priority basis to form an ever-expanding set of rights through public action. This highlights the significance of the role of a willing state in opening up opportunities, that is, creating capabilities, in response to a pressuring public demand. Here individual freedom is taken up as a social commitment. Following this interpretation, the present paper attempts to look into the ‘why’ of the dynamics of “Kerala Model”.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Kerala model, economic growth-human development interaction, motivation, public action
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; Z - Other Special Topics > Z1 - Cultural Economics ; Economic Sociology ; Economic Anthropology

References

1. Alkire, Sabina and Deneulin, Severine (2002) ‘Individual Motivation, Its Nature, Determinants, and Consequences for Within-Group Bahaviour’, in Heyer et al. (2002): 51 – 73. Also available as a working paper at https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp184.pdf

2. Antle, John M. (1983) ‘Infrastructure and Aggregate Agricultural Productivity: International Evidence’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 31(3) (April): 609-19.

3. Babchuk, Nicholas. and Booth, Alan (1969) "Voluntary Association Membership: A Longitudinal Analysis." American Sociological Review, 34 (Feb.):31-45.

4. Centre for Development Studies/UN (1975) Poverty, Unemployment and Development Policy: A case Study of Selected Issues with Reference to Kerala. Reprinted in 2000, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

5. Deneulin, Severine (1999) ‘Affiliation and the Political Nature of Economic Man’, Queen Elizabeth House, processed, University of Oxford.

6. Dresbach, Sereana Howard (1992) Commitment and Volunteer Organizations: Varfables Influencing Participation In Environmental Organizations. Unpublished dissertation, The Ohio State University.

7. Government of India (2001) National Human Development Report: 2001. Planning Commission, New Delhi.

8. Government of Kerala Economic Review of Kerala, various issues. State Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram.

9. Government of Kerala (2002) Economic Review: 2002. State Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram.

10. Heyer, Judith, Stewart, Frances and Thorp, Rosemary (2002) Group Behaviour and Development: Is the Market Destroying Cooperation? New York: Oxford University Press.

11. Kannan KP and Pillai, N. Vijayamohanan (2002) Plight of the Power Sector in India: Inefficiency, Reform and Political Economy. Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

12. Kannan KP and Hari KS (2002) ‘Kerala’s Gulf Connection: Remittances and Their Macroeconomic Impact’, in Zachariah, KC, Kannan, KP and Rajan, SI (eds.) Kerala’s Gulf Connection: CDS Studies on International Labour Migration from Kerala State in India. May. Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram.

13. Pillai, N. Vijayamohanan (2003[2018]) “Development as a ‘Norms-Rights Transition Process’ Through Public Action”, available as a working paper at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86137/

14. Ranis, Gustav and Stewart, Frances (2000) ‘Strategies for Success in Human Development’ Journal of Human Development, February 2000, Vol. 1(1): 49-70

15. Ranis, Gustav, Ramirez, Alejandro and Stewart, Frances (2000) ‘Economic Growth and Human Development’ World Development, February, Vol. 28(2): 197-219

16. Sen, AK (1982) ‘Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioural Foundations of Economic Theory’, in Sen, AK (1982) Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 84 – 106.

17. Sen, AK.(1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

18. Sen, AK and Wolfensohn, JD. (1999) “Development: a coin with two sides”, The Hindu, 6 May 1999

19. UNDP (1997) Human Development Report 1997. Oxford: OUP

20. UNDP (2000) Human Development Report 2000. Oxford: OUP.