Can a new premier usher in a new era of socio-economic justice if the socio-economic thought pattern remains old and counterproductive? He cannot unless the mindset changes too with a change in the country's prime minister.

For, a conventional frame of mind of those-who-matter will keep the frame of reference conservative within which the new entrant at the highest level is expected to act thus restricting his degrees of freedom that will impinge upon decision-making.

This, of course, would be over and above the mindset of the new premier himself which, if found conservative, will only be aggravating the situation. If, however, the outlook of the new premier is liberal, then he will not be able to contribute much if the web of the policy and social environment he is caught in is conservative as the environment will try to capture him as strongly as it captured the previous heads of the government rendering them ineffective.

To bring about a tangible change then, it is inadequate to merely welcome the new individual on a trying seat. Rather, to be able to get results through him, there should be a concerted effort to attempt to influence the environmental disposition with a view to facilitating the job of the incoming prime minister.

Only then will he be able to produce the results the nation has been wanting to see for a very long time. Let us, therefore, examine the thought pattern into which the new premier has been received and the changes that might be imperative to effect outcomes for the better.

The economic policy circle continues to be dominated by the ultra-conventional view of the savings-investment (S-I) approach to not only increase economic growth but to also increase per capita income with a view to also affect poverty which is a slogan so populistic now that all roads are shown to lead to it whether or not they do so in reality.

While, at least, the slogan should be welcome; is the (S-I) approach adequate enough to bring about distributive justice and alleviate poverty? And, even before that, is it even possible to rev up economic growth through this approach to a level that can then begin to impact the poor, at least, trickle by trickle? We will take up the second question first.

The country remains plagued with low levels of savings due to low corporate savings, low government savings, and low personal savings. These are a function of business competitiveness and performance, corporate governance, government's effectiveness in mobilizing revenues, good governance at the public level, and personal incomes.

Unless these variables look up, national savings will be modest. Savings gap is then advised to be plugged by foreign investment and loans. If we rely on loans, we are back to square one from where we had started in the 1960s to little or no avail. The upshot, inter alia, at the turn of the century was higher economic inequalities and poverty and high indebtedness.

As for foreign investment, the overall investment climate is weak due to our level of tolerance for terror which would be high if level of its intolerance is found to be low. It is important to determine the percentage of the population that views terror as terror and condemns it.

If condemnation is low or weak or both or nonexistent and inconsistent, terror would be viewed as a certain kind of "just struggle" in the hearts of hearts of many if not overtly. The level of intolerance for terror would, therefore, be low that would, in turn, hinder efforts to rein in terror.

So, on the one hand, the people may want levels of investment to go up but, on the other hand, they may not want to resist the deterrents to investment even orally. Unless public opinion is allowed to be expressed freely to show the downside of terror in more ways than one, we will not be deterring terror as a climate of opinion will not come up for the purpose.

However, we will thus be deterring investment that we want but that will not come in a big way for as long as terror is dealt with by the people through silence and indifference.

Since silence in the face of terror is acceptance of terror, we create a climate more conducive for terror than for investment. So, we cannot have it all as we have to be clear about the choices we make.

Against the above backdrop, a policy environment that banks on the savings-investment approach is a non-starter. Even if the above may not be the case and the S-I approach works; to what extent will it be able to increase the rate of growth to impact inequities and poverty? These will be affected only by a "trickle" as uttered by none other than the "trickle-down" enthusiasts themselves. How many more generations will the downtrodden need to wait before the benefits of growth reach them?

While the deprived would be receiving trickles, if at all, the haves would have benefits gushing towards them due to a skewed asset distribution which ends up benefiting the rich a lot more disproportionately in events of high growth due to their much higher ownership of assets.

The issue, therefore, is one of scruples as well. Why must the lower segments receive only a "trickle" when the upper income segments appropriate a major share of growth? And, if they receive this trickle, will it be able to address inequities and poverty in a big way? Clearly not as growth is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to alleviate the economic suffering of the multitude.

What do we then need next? The policy environment would answer per capita incomes need to go up too. But, per capita incomes may go up due to a significant increase in the incomes of a few wealthy with or without an appreciable increase in the incomes of the lower segments.

To this extent, per capita incomes' increase may conceal all the income inequities there are in a country. The policy environment might even say that a quick increase in per capita incomes may be effected through a rapid decrease in population growth rate.

But, population hidden momentum continues to increase population size even if the population growth rate is reduced to replacement levels. So, first population size cannot be reduced in a jiffy.

Second, how might it be managed in our country where there still is a preference for large families amongst some of the very wealthiest and amongst all of the low-income segments'? In both these segments, children are viewed as a blessing and the larger the family, the more blessed it is supposed to be.

The underlying reasons may be socio-economic power for the wealthiest and socio-economic survival for the poor. This shows that the virtues of a small family have not been promoted enough either by the government or by the communities and the society. As a consequence, a small family may still be made to feel very "small" before the "human power" of a large family.

For as long as this cultural characteristic prevails in the society, the economy will continue to sink beneath the population dependency burden which will, in turn, provide an economic rationale for large families amongst the poor. Since economic health and population size also go hand in hand, the vicious circle will need to be broken autonomously through socio-economic measures.

A major cause for inequities and poverty, as also found in reports prepared by the World Bank and by the Asian Development Bank, is the country's land tenure system which is highly iniquitous.

It not only gives rise to economic deprivation, loss of productive potential, inefficient agricultural production systems, and detrimental concentration of wealth; it also reinforces a primitive disvalue system.

This system keeps the society trapped in dysfunctional patron-client relationships and related norms and practices peculiar to tribes and clans that would much rather be done away with if human power is to be unleashed for country's socio-economic development.

Again, this is an area where the progressive part of the society must not just create a climate of opinion but must militate intellectually against the yoke of customs that not only keep the human power hemmed in but are retrogressive enough to be termed prehistoric.

The result is that the men and women keep pursuing goals that are at odds with the goal of national socio-economic development. Unless the energies of almost 68-70 per cent population in rural-agricultural areas are channelized and the population given direction towards overarching national goals, human development or investment in human capital will remain rhetorical and a far cry.

To a very large extent, it is the socio-economic context that defines the direction in which our new heads of the government operate. Their survival in office depends on remaining in step with the system unless they are 'transformative within the system' which is paradoxical.

For those who eagerly await a transformational turn of events, they must work towards changing the policy and socio-cultural ambience without which no one man can initiate quantum changes. And, onus lies on people as much because they are the "ambience" in their individual and collective capacities.