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.
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.