Why are so few economists willing to ask awkward questions about India’s development trajectory?

At a time of rising economic uncertainty, India needs economists willing to ask uncomfortable questions. Why are so few doing so?

India’s current account deficit narrowed to 0.7% of the gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of the 2025-’26 financial year. Reports say this improvement is likely the result of remittances from abroad after the previous quarter reported a wide deficit due to higher import costs and economic turmoil. Foreign investors have withdrawn Rs 2.25 lakh crore from Indian equities this year.

The rupee has depreciated fast while oil prices pose inflationary risks for a country heavily dependent on energy imports. Domestic consumption has shown signs of fatigue. Employment generation continues to lag behind the aspirations of millions of young Indians entering the workforce every year.

In the midst of this, economists and policymakers continue to debate the durability of domestic demand, the quality of employment generation and the increasingly unequal distribution of economic gains.

India remains one of the world’s fastest-growing major economies with robust tax collection, infrastructure spending and digital public infrastructure that has transformed service delivery. But are difficult enough questions being asked about the economy India is building?

Can growth remain durable if consumption weakens? How vulnerable is India to sustained increases in global energy prices? What are the implications of persistent wealth inequality? Why has private investment remained uneven despite years of policy support?

At a time of economic concerns, the voice of the professional economist appears strangely subdued.

An ethical standard

A few years ago, I came across George DeMartino’s thought-provoking book The Economist’s Oath. Like the Hippocratic Oath in medicine, DeMartino asked: if economists should be held to an ethical standard that requires them to consider the consequences of their advice and interventions?

But economists are not surgeons and neither do their decisions determine life and death. Yet, DeMartino was arguing that the consequences of economic policies are certainly borne by many.

Distinguished voices from the field of economics continue to write and research on public affairs. Yet, compared to the past, the economics profession appears less visible in shaping public discourse.

The public intellectual economist, once a familiar figure in democratic debate, seems to have become increasingly rare.

But if economists are not central participants to today’s discourse about the nature of economic development, who should be? Part of the answer may lie within the profession.

Modern economics has become specialised, where an economist is evaluated by publications, citations, grants and methodological sophistication rather than public engagement. Career advancement depends more on journal articles than newspaper columns. Such incentives that once encouraged economists to participate in public debates have weakened. As a result, many economists have become experts rather than public intellectuals.

Advances in knowledge often depend upon deep expertise. Yet excessive specialisation carries its own risks where economists can grapple with narrow questions while being less keen to engage with broader societal concerns.

Another explanation could be that modern economies are complicated – like India’s economy where growth has been accompanied by persistent unemployment, income inequality and regional disparities.

Public standard

Economists are trained to recognise uncertainty and avoid simplistic conclusions. Yet caution should not be confused with silence. In fact, uncertainty points to the need for economists to participate in the public discourse.

There are few definitive answers, but economic expertise can certainly help citizens make better sense of these times.

Economists such as JM Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, Amartya Sen, Jagdish Bhagwati, KN Raj and IG Patel actively participated in national debates, writing for broader audiences and challenging governments when necessary. Public engagement, for them, was part of their intellectual responsibility. The economist was an expert but also a citizen.

But then public debate is now polarised. Economic arguments are frequently interpreted as political statements while instant reactions and commentary leave no place for nuance.

In such circumstances, economists may find it easier to retreat into academic specialisation than to engage in public controversy. Yet, democratic societies require informed voices, like that of economists, willing to challenge prevailing assumptions.

Economics is a discipline characterised by disagreement and imperfect foresight. The responsibility of economists, then, is to engage with today’s uncertain problems and contribute expertise to democratic deliberation.

Public discourse today is dominated by influencers and partisan commentators, making the need for thoughtful economic voices more urgent than ever.

If DeMartino is correct, economics is about public trust. The health of Indian democracy may depend, in part, on the willingness of economists to ask inconvenient questions before problems become crises.

Freddy Thomas teaches Economic Analysis of Law at the School of Law, Christ University, Bengaluru, and writes on the intersection of law, economics and public policy.

Also read: This book re-examines India’s economic growth through the frame of employment (or the lack of it)