Two recent events have prompted me to write this rather quick third post following my first two on reviewing the US elections 2024 and forecasting Delhi’s 2025 state elections.
The first is the unravelling of USAID in the United States which has caused ripple effects throughout the world. Newly elected President Trump and Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiated a near-total freeze on foreign aid, leading to the dismissal or furlough of over 1,000 USAID employees and contractors as promised during his campaign. The agency's website and communication channels were shut down, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced plans to merge USAID into the State Department, effectively dismantling its independent operations.
The second is more local in nature - Indian YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia, known as "BeerBiceps," became the center of a significant controversy following his appearance on comedian Samay Raina's YouTube show, "India's Got Latent." During the episode, Allahbadia posed the following question to a contestant:
"Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life, or join in once and stop it forever?"
This remark led to widespread public outrage, with many deeming it offensive and unacceptable. The controversy escalated to legal challenges, with complaints filed against Allahbadia, Raina, and other participants for promoting obscenity. Authorities, including the Mumbai Police and Assam Police, initiated inquiries into the matter. Subsequently, Samay Raina removed all episodes of "India's Got Latent" from his YouTube channel.
These two events have made me think of my favorite Economist/person, Albert O. Hirschman. It also validated my choice for self-censoring myself on social media platforms and not tweeting anything since 2017 or so, having been a voracious tweeter before. If you’re wondering about the connection between all this - let me explain.
Voice as a Tool, a Weapon, and a Risk
You see, in today’s hyper-connected digital world, voice - the ability to express opinions, challenge ideas, and engage in discourse - has become both a tool and a weapon. The Ranveer Allahbadia controversy is more than just a debate about an inappropriate joke; it reveals a deeper issue: how voice (and the medium of voice) is politicized, weaponized, and suppressed in modern public discourse.
On the first two counts of politicisation and weaponization of voice, my first post on reviewing the aftermath of US Elections 2024 went into detail on the importance of narratives and how Trump’s campaign outsmarted the Democrats and mainstream media at their own game by using alternative media (such as podcasts, youtube shows, twitter/X, tic-toc reels, etc.,) which ultimately helped him win and caused a complete vibe shift. It is notable that Prime Minister Modi has since recognized the shift in rules of the game and made his first podcast appearance on nouveau-billionaire Nikhil Kamath’s youtube show. However, beneath the surface, Indian politicians had very much understood the game with various examples such as Nithin Gadkari, Nirmala Sitaraman, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Arvind Kejriwal using alternative media to reach the voters. This trend has also seeped into state and local government levels with the government of Rajasthan introducing a "Social Media Influencer New Broadcaster Policy" to recruit social media influencers to promote its welfare schemes and programs which was also part of the state’s 2024-25 budget.
None of this is particularly novel - Allahbadia himself received the "Disruptor of the Year" award from Prime Minister Modi at the inaugural National Creators Award ceremony in March 2024, signaling the growing influence of alternative media in India.
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in Action
Which leads me to the last point on suppression (and self-censorship) of voice. As is often the case, I wondered what Hirschman would have said about the Allahbadia controversy.
In his treatise Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (1970), Hirschman introduces a conceptual ultimatum that consumers (or individuals in any system) face when confronted with declining quality - they either Exit (leave/disengage) or Voice (speak up).
The beauty of Hirschman’s framework is that it doesn’t just apply to firms and consumers but any and every walk of life - leaders and voters in politics, clubs and fan following in sports, family and even romantic relationships. Hirschman through his diagnosis of consumers' response to decline in firms discovered a universal law of nature which to be celebrated!
Applying Hirschman’s framework to the Allahbadia controversy helps us understand public reaction:
Voice: Many people spoke out, criticizing the remark and demanding accountability.
Exit: A section of his audience disengaged - unsubscribing, unfollowing, and calling for boycotts.
Loyalty: Others defended him, arguing that cancel culture had been weaponized and individual rights were under threat.
Hirschman and the Unraveling of USAID
I’ll have less to say for now about the unraveling of USAID and Hirschman’s critical views on foreign aid in development economics - something many scholars on this mailing list are already well aware of.
To sum up briefly, Hirschman rejected both dominant economic schools of his time - the old Keynesians (Harvard, Cambridge, MIT) and the anti-Keynesians (particularly at LSE). Instead, he focused on pragmatic economic development strategies rather than rigid grand theories. His work, The Strategy of Economic Development (1958), emphasized problem-solving over abstract models.
Based on his lived experiences in Latin America, Hirschman’s Development Projects Observed (1967) highlights how many foreign aid projects fail - not due to a lack of funding, but because of unanticipated challenges, poor execution, and social resistance. While he did not outright oppose foreign aid, he was deeply skeptical of how it was implemented.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can declare that he was entirely accurate on this count, for sure. The second- and third-order effects of USAID’s unraveling are still unfolding for instance with the people who were associated with it in various countries now brought into the spotlight. In the coming days, weeks, and months, those associated with it will be scrutinized further. Perhaps, as always, Hirschman would have seen it through the lens of his Rhetoric of Reaction (1991).
What Does This Mean for the Future?
What does all of this mean for the future? Perhaps nothing - or perhaps everything, depending on how we choose to engage.
A couple of years ago, I picked up Hirschman’s A Bias for Hope (1971) from a colleague’s personal library. Inside, I found a personal note from the friend who had gifted it to him:
“It can be said of a man with a headache who is counting his hair that he is close to the problem but far, far away from the solution. I don’t know what this statement has to do with this book or with development, but it seemed appropriate, or at any rate, cute. Happy belated birthday!”
At the time, this note irked me at the time for many reasons but perhaps contains a valuable piece of information on how Hirschman is viewed by the world (or more/less? importantly, his peers in academia). As someone who believes in attaching more importance to description before prediction, strategy before any grand theory, I find him to be a great influence in my life and I’m grateful for his writings.
As I pondered my own self-censorship, his writings gave me both an answer and an inspiration. Hirschman - a recluse in his private life - once wrote:
“While I have been reluctant to delve into these matters, there comes a point when one ought to try.”
So, here’s my attempt.