Thomas Sowell, an American economic historian and social theorist, famously described this as, the anointed. In this atmosphere of emotional policymaking and retrospective political storytelling, the danger lies in the gradual displacement of evidence-based public policy by moral grandstanding. Policies are increasingly judged by intention, symbolism and rhetorical appeal rather than measurable outcomes, institutional sustainability, or long-term societal consequences. Those who question the efficacy, or fiscal viability of such measures are often portrayed as insensitive or anti-poor.
The Anointed Elites
It is in this context Thomas Sowell’s, The Vision of the Anointed acquires striking contemporary relevance. He examines a recurring phenomenon in governance across societies where the tendency of intellectual and political elites is to impose sweeping social solutions with moral certainty while remaining insulated from accountability when policies fail. Though the book was written in the context of public policy debates concerning welfare, crime, education and social engineering in the United States, its central thesis is profoundly universal.
The pattern he identified is visible in India too. Grand welfare announcements, loan waivers, universal subsidies, free electricity promises, cash transfer politics, reservation expansions and headline driven reforms are frequently launched with great political enthusiasm but with little long-term evaluation. The result is a policymaking ecosystem where anecdotal narratives overpower data.
Good Intentions and Failed Results
Sowell’s critique becomes especially relevant because he challenges what may be called the four-stage cycle of anointed policymaking. First, the crisis is identified and framed with moral urgency. Next, a politically appealing solution is introduced with promises of transformative change. Third, when results prove weak or harmful, failures are blamed on implementation rather than the policy itself, leading finally to the same framework being expanded under renewed moral justification. India’s welfare discourse increasingly exhibits this pattern. Many schemes undoubtedly provide immediate relief and possess genuine humanitarian value. But a democracy cannot rely solely on intentions alone, governance ultimately demands accountability for results.
This is where evidence-based public policy becomes indispensable. It insists that public expenditure must be continuously tested against empirical outcomes. Policies should be evaluated through data, pilot studies, counterfactual analysis, independent audits, cost-benefit assessment and long-term institutional impact. Good intentions cannot substitute for evidence, just as political popularity cannot replace policy effectiveness.
India already possesses several examples that show both the promise and limitations of welfare governance. Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanisms, Aadhaar-linked subsidy targeting and digital payment infrastructure have significantly reduced leakages through measurable outcomes. Conversely, many farm loan waivers have shown limited structural impact on agricultural productivity while creating fiscal pressures and expectations of repeated political intervention.
The challenge, therefore is not whether governments should intervene, but how they should intervene. Sustainable governance requires institutional humility. Policymakers, experts and political elites are fallible and policies must remain open to correction when evidence contradicts assumptions. The future of democratic governance depends not on abandoning welfare, but on reclaiming the primacy of evidence, accountability and intellectual honesty in public policy.
