Exodus, and The Economy!

We stepped into 2020 with a lot of expectations.

We believed we were entering a new decade with new possibilities, new ambitions and new year resolutions. Then the world changed in a way very few of us had imagined.

The beginning of 2020 brought an unprecedented situation. The world was witnessing the havoc caused by the Coronavirus, countries were going into lockdown and millions of people were suddenly facing uncertainty about their health, work and livelihood.

Keeping all the speculation aside, only time would tell how the situation would eventually unfold. But the immediate priorities were obvious: health, safety and livelihood.

And all three are connected to one simple fact.

We are not isolated individuals. We are part of an integrated society and an integrated economy.

We are all sailing the same boat

No matter how advanced we considered ourselves to be, whether we belonged to a developed nation or a developing one, the pandemic reminded us that we were all sailing the same boat.

We have built some of the most advanced transportation and communication systems in human history. We can move goods across continents, communicate with someone thousands of kilometres away and reach places that earlier generations could only imagine.

Yet when a crisis arrived, we struggled to reach people who needed basic necessities.

The question was not simply about transportation or technology.

It was about the structure of the economy itself.

Who produces what we need?

Where do they live?

Where do they work?

And what happens to them when the system suddenly stops?

The cost of development

The circumstances we witnessed were unexpected, but perhaps they also forced us to look at some of the choices we had made over the previous few decades.

Economic development and urbanisation have transformed the country. Cities have expanded rapidly, often moving into what were once agricultural and rural areas.

Farmers were encouraged or forced to sell land to developers. The amount of money involved could be small or substantial, but the immediate transaction often hid a much larger change.

We were not only losing agricultural land.

We were also losing local employment, local production and an important part of village economics.

Agriculture is not simply an occupation. Cultivating land requires knowledge, patience, experience and an understanding of nature.

A person who can turn barren land into productive land is doing much more than simply growing a crop.

Cultivation is an art. It requires the patience of an artist and the understanding of a scientist.

From cultivator to labourer

Urbanisation can create opportunities, but it can also displace people.

A person who was capable of cultivating land may eventually become a labourer in a city.

The irony is that we often underestimate the importance of labour.

Machines can construct impressive structures, but machines still need people. Every machine needs someone to operate it, maintain it, repair it or manage it.

That person is the worker.

The labourer is therefore not an insignificant part of the economy. The labourer is one of the people who keeps the economy moving.

We cannot build a modern economy while forgetting the people who physically build, operate and maintain it.

The economics of migration

When villages do not provide sufficient employment opportunities, people naturally move towards cities.

This movement is not necessarily a problem. Migration has always been part of economic development.

The problem begins when people are forced to migrate because they have no viable alternative.

A person leaves their village, their family and their community in search of work. They arrive in a city expecting an opportunity.

But if the city cannot provide enough employment, the result can be unemployment, temporary work, overcrowded settlements and a loss of dignity.

This is where economics becomes more than numbers on a spreadsheet.

Economics is ultimately about people.

Every human being is part of the economy, whether they are a software engineer, farmer, shopkeeper, factory worker, driver or daily wage labourer.

Life of dignity

Every person deserves the opportunity to live with dignity.

When someone works throughout the day simply to earn enough money to eat that evening, there is very little room for savings, education, healthcare or planning for the future.

Life becomes hand to mouth.

In such a situation, even a short disruption can become devastating.

A lockdown, illness, loss of employment or interruption in transportation can immediately affect the ability of a family to buy food.

This is why the concept of livelihood is so important when we discuss economic development.

Development should not only make cities richer. It should make lives more secure, more independent and more dignified.

Villages are part of the economy

We sometimes look at villages as places that people leave behind when they move towards cities.

I believe we should look at them differently.

Villages are an integral part of society and an important part of the economy.

In a country like India, a significant part of the population has historically lived outside major metropolitan centres.

These communities produce food, provide services, create local employment and maintain social structures that have existed for generations.

If these local economies are strong, people have more choices.

They can stay if they want to stay.

They can migrate if they want to migrate.

The important difference is choice.

Can a village run its own economy?

Imagine a village or a small town that is capable of producing many of the goods and services required by its own community.

Farmers produce food.

Local businesses provide essential goods.

Skilled workers provide services.

Small industries create employment.

Schools educate children.

Healthcare facilities serve the community.

Local markets allow money to circulate within the community.

Such an economy would still be connected to the larger national economy. It would still buy and sell from other regions.

But it would not be completely dependent on a distant metropolitan centre for everything.

Strong local economies can make a larger economy more resilient.

Integrated, but independent enough to survive

A village economy does not need to operate in isolation.

In fact, isolation is neither practical nor desirable in the modern world.

Villages, towns and cities should remain connected through trade, transportation, technology and education.

But during a crisis, every local community should have enough strength to provide the basic necessities of life to its people.

Food, water, basic healthcare, essential services and local employment should not disappear completely when transportation between cities is disrupted.

In many places, the basic structure already exists.

Communities know how to produce food. People know how to provide services. Local markets already exist.

What is required is better planning, stronger infrastructure and a more deliberate effort to strengthen these local systems.

The lesson from the exodus

The mass movement of workers during the lockdown was more than a humanitarian crisis.

It was also an economic lesson.

It showed us how dependent cities are on people who often remain invisible until something goes wrong.

The people who clean our buildings, construct our homes, deliver goods, operate vehicles, work in factories and provide countless everyday services are an essential part of urban life.

When the economy stopped, many of them had no safety net.

Their decision to return home was not simply an act of migration.

For many, it was a search for security.

Home represented food, family, community and at least some possibility of survival.

What should we learn?

I am not an economics expert, and this article is not intended to be an economic statement or a definitive solution.

It is simply an observation.

Perhaps we need to rethink what we mean by development.

Bigger cities are not the only measure of progress.

Higher GDP is not the only measure of progress.

More highways and taller buildings are not the only measure of progress.

We should also ask whether ordinary people have enough opportunity to live, work and raise their families with dignity.

Can a farmer earn a reasonable living without selling the land?

Can a young person find meaningful employment without immediately moving to a metropolitan city?

Can a village provide basic healthcare and education?

Can a small town create an ecosystem where people can build businesses and careers?

These questions are not only about villages.

They are questions about the strength of the entire economy.

Economy is ultimately about people

The economy is often discussed using complicated words, numbers and graphs.

But underneath all of that are ordinary people.

People who wake up every morning and go to work.

People who grow food.

People who drive buses and trucks.

People who build houses.

People who run small shops.

People who work in offices.

People who earn enough today to eat today.

Every one of them contributes to the economy.

An economy is strong not merely when it grows, but when its people are able to participate in that growth with dignity.