The ongoing farmer protests gave me an opportunity to better understand what is happening through the lens of two change frameworks.
Wants & Needs Framework:
The wants and needs framework is premised on the understanding that there are things that people need and do not need and there are things that people want and do not want. When what people want, aligns with what people need, change is easy to effect. For any policy change, the challenges arise when either people want what is not needed or people need what is not wanted. In the first instance when people want what is not needed, effecting change is also an effort to educate people. In the second where people need what is not wanted, the effort should be to create awareness about the issue and solution. The change framework is clearly laid out for paving way to effect meaningful change in policies.
In the context of the new farm laws, the central government believes that it is in the right as these are laws that are truly needed – people’s wants be damned. On the other hand, farmers are convinced that while reforms are needed, these laws are not it. We’re now witnessing a scenario where change makers ignored the most important stakeholders of this law – farmers themselves. For any change to be effective, education or creating awareness cannot be an after-thought. It is in fact a pre-requisite and has to be weaved into the process of defining the policy itself.
Collective Action Problem & Corresponding Framework:
Mancur Olson in his collective action theory postulates that organizations exist to advance the common interest of groups of individuals. Groups organize only when the benefits are concentrated. He also goes on to argue that smaller groups are likelier than larger groups to effect a change(provision what he calls ‘public good’ in the context of the group).
The change framework based on this logic of collective action formulates that change is more likely to happen when the benefits from either supporting or opposing a policy are concentrated. Conversely, change is less likely to happen when either the benefits from both supporting and opposing a policy are diffused OR when benefits from both supporting and opposing a policy are concentrated.
In the current scenario of the farmers protest, there is an organized vocal group that is opposing the policy change. Voices supporting the policy however are comparatively muted. In fact, it was after the protests built up steam that supporters of the policy change scrambled to organize and project their narrative in mainstream media houses. While there are pockets of farmers(outside of Punjab and Haryana) who have voiced support for the policy, these groups are no where near as organized as the farmers opposing it. So, in light of the change framework, one would assume that the farm bill will most likely be revoked. But what one would miss to layer in is the role of narrative and perception. And in that at least as of today, the government and policy makers seem to have gained some ground.
Disclaimer: Do keep in mind that I’m learning as I go. A lot of views here may seem ill-formed / uninformed – which just means I’ve more to learn and more to grow. And that is the exact reason this room was made.