West Bengal is poorer than us and they have a lower force participation rate. They also have a much lower fertility rate (~1.3/1.4). Although this could be explained by the fact that West Bengalis are lazy and entitled. Women there don't work nor have kids.
Foreigners often label our development as a paradox, but what they see as contradictions are simply the nuanced ways we've navigated our national journey. Our social and economic landscape defies conventional Western frameworks, and that's precisely our strength.
Consider our economic model: we maintain a remarkably low tax-to-GDP ratio, with education and health services predominantly provided by private and non-profit sectors. Yet, our social indicators remain surprisingly robust. This isn't a weakness—it's our adaptive resilience.
We're a Muslim-majority nation with impressive female labor force participation, challenging simplistic narratives about religious conservatism. Our industrial policy, often critiqued as an elite-level private negotiation, has achieved moderate success that speaks to our pragmatic approach.
What outsiders call a paradox is fundamentally our way of life. People here take care of themselves and their communities. There's an intricate dance between state and business elites—a system of mutual understanding that has served us well.
Some media commentators demand increased tax-to-GDP ratios and more direct taxation. I argue we should resist such pressures. These advocates want to penalize work and success while subsidizing failure. Consumption-based taxation remains our most effective strategy, with gradual tariff reductions.
Critics might claim this stance supports inequality inherent in Anglo-American capitalism. But this is ahistorical. When the British first arrived in Bengal, they were stunned by our society's deep-rooted inequalities. Our class structures predate Western intervention—the notion of an imported egalitarian impulse is itself a Western construct.
This is why I'm a staunch supporter of federalism. We should double down on our cultural strengths rather than pretending Bangladesh can—or should—transform into a European-style social democracy. A federalized system would create more inter-state competition and provide enhanced opportunities for private sector negotiation.
Among South Asian nations, we've uniquely maintained our distinctive way of life. India, our ancestral cultural root, has repeatedly lost its way. They've been a second-rate version of successive global models: first the Soviet Union, then a European social democracy, and now attempting to imitate China—ironically using second-hand information filtered through American perspectives.
Our path isn't about emulation but adaptation. We're not a failed version of someone else's model—we're an evolved version of ourselves.
I am still not sold on federation. And I think you are retrofitting a libertarianism to Bangladesh that is equally ahistorical. That aside, there is a lot here I agree with, and probably will write or talk about in future. :)
Firstly, I am not retrofitting existing systems or policies. As a libertarian, I have consistently critiqued government intervention and industrial policy, recognizing their limitations and potential for misuse. However, I acknowledge the role that strategic government initiatives have played in shaping modern Bangladesh. This recognition does not contradict my libertarian principles but rather highlights the complex interplay between policy and societal progress.
Secondly, my thesis does not appeal to individualistic desires. Instead, I have explicitly drawn attention to the collectivistic nature of Bangladeshi society. This collectivism is a fundamental aspect of our cultural fabric and has significantly influenced our economic and social structures.
Moreover, the desire for an egalitarian society is often a Western import, frequently advocated by expatriates from cities like London. This perspective may not fully align with the intrinsic values and dynamics of Bangladeshi society, which has long been characterized by a blend of collectivism and class-based structures.
Some may argue that a collectivistic society naturally lends itself to welfarist economic policies. However, it is essential to note that collectivism and class-based structures are not mutually exclusive. Bangladesh has historically maintained a balance between these elements, reflecting our unique societal dynamics.
Furthermore, when examining other collectivistic societies in Asia, particularly those with roots in rice-farming cultures, it is evident that the tax-to-GDP ratio remains relatively low compared to Western European standards. This observation underscores the distinct economic and fiscal policies that emerge from collectivistic, yet non-welfarist, societal frameworks.
West Bengal is poorer than us and they have a lower force participation rate. They also have a much lower fertility rate (~1.3/1.4). Although this could be explained by the fact that West Bengalis are lazy and entitled. Women there don't work nor have kids.
Foreigners often label our development as a paradox, but what they see as contradictions are simply the nuanced ways we've navigated our national journey. Our social and economic landscape defies conventional Western frameworks, and that's precisely our strength.
Consider our economic model: we maintain a remarkably low tax-to-GDP ratio, with education and health services predominantly provided by private and non-profit sectors. Yet, our social indicators remain surprisingly robust. This isn't a weakness—it's our adaptive resilience.
We're a Muslim-majority nation with impressive female labor force participation, challenging simplistic narratives about religious conservatism. Our industrial policy, often critiqued as an elite-level private negotiation, has achieved moderate success that speaks to our pragmatic approach.
What outsiders call a paradox is fundamentally our way of life. People here take care of themselves and their communities. There's an intricate dance between state and business elites—a system of mutual understanding that has served us well.
Some media commentators demand increased tax-to-GDP ratios and more direct taxation. I argue we should resist such pressures. These advocates want to penalize work and success while subsidizing failure. Consumption-based taxation remains our most effective strategy, with gradual tariff reductions.
Critics might claim this stance supports inequality inherent in Anglo-American capitalism. But this is ahistorical. When the British first arrived in Bengal, they were stunned by our society's deep-rooted inequalities. Our class structures predate Western intervention—the notion of an imported egalitarian impulse is itself a Western construct.
This is why I'm a staunch supporter of federalism. We should double down on our cultural strengths rather than pretending Bangladesh can—or should—transform into a European-style social democracy. A federalized system would create more inter-state competition and provide enhanced opportunities for private sector negotiation.
Among South Asian nations, we've uniquely maintained our distinctive way of life. India, our ancestral cultural root, has repeatedly lost its way. They've been a second-rate version of successive global models: first the Soviet Union, then a European social democracy, and now attempting to imitate China—ironically using second-hand information filtered through American perspectives.
Our path isn't about emulation but adaptation. We're not a failed version of someone else's model—we're an evolved version of ourselves.
I am still not sold on federation. And I think you are retrofitting a libertarianism to Bangladesh that is equally ahistorical. That aside, there is a lot here I agree with, and probably will write or talk about in future. :)
Firstly, I am not retrofitting existing systems or policies. As a libertarian, I have consistently critiqued government intervention and industrial policy, recognizing their limitations and potential for misuse. However, I acknowledge the role that strategic government initiatives have played in shaping modern Bangladesh. This recognition does not contradict my libertarian principles but rather highlights the complex interplay between policy and societal progress.
Secondly, my thesis does not appeal to individualistic desires. Instead, I have explicitly drawn attention to the collectivistic nature of Bangladeshi society. This collectivism is a fundamental aspect of our cultural fabric and has significantly influenced our economic and social structures.
Moreover, the desire for an egalitarian society is often a Western import, frequently advocated by expatriates from cities like London. This perspective may not fully align with the intrinsic values and dynamics of Bangladeshi society, which has long been characterized by a blend of collectivism and class-based structures.
Some may argue that a collectivistic society naturally lends itself to welfarist economic policies. However, it is essential to note that collectivism and class-based structures are not mutually exclusive. Bangladesh has historically maintained a balance between these elements, reflecting our unique societal dynamics.
Furthermore, when examining other collectivistic societies in Asia, particularly those with roots in rice-farming cultures, it is evident that the tax-to-GDP ratio remains relatively low compared to Western European standards. This observation underscores the distinct economic and fiscal policies that emerge from collectivistic, yet non-welfarist, societal frameworks.