> Wouldn't it be great to have political parties competing as to who best can provide food to the poor?
Not if the food is being bought from cronies with borrowed money. Indian agriculture is notoriously inefficient [1].
Better institutions would upgrade the farms, thereby reducing the price of food, and use some of the surplus wealth to educate, and upgrade the lifestyles of, the masses. TL; DR Approximate the Industrial Revolution, with the benefits of hindsight. This won't happen, however, because 100 poor farmers dependent on your political handouts are more valuable than those same farmers a little bit wealthier, and a little bit smarter.
That said, we're talking about the world's largest democracy. All in all, the system is performing well enough.
Not if the food is being bought from cronies with borrowed money. Indian agriculture is notoriously inefficient [1].
Better institutions would upgrade the farms, thereby reducing the price of food, and use some of the surplus wealth to educate, and upgrade the lifestyles of, the masses. TL; DR Approximate the Industrial Revolution, with the benefits of hindsight. This won't happen, however, because 100 poor farmers dependent on your political handouts are more valuable than those same farmers a little bit wealthier, and a little bit smarter.
That said, we're talking about the world's largest democracy. All in all, the system is performing well enough.
[1] http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/Agriculture_product...