‘Unintended’ Consequences of State Intervention

The central and some of the state governments have chosen to promote public good by adopting various measures, which, on the face of it, look to be favouring the general welfare of the public. The COVID-19 vaccination campaign inaugurated by the central government and the safety net announced by different states for working women are some of these measures that have been undertaken by the central as well as state governments. By the government’s admission, the vaccination drive is aimed at protecting people from the coronavirus, while surveillance is claimed to have been adopted to provide security to women. There are two types of technologies that are aimed at providing social and physical safety and security to the people in India. But these measures give us the impression that the governments take “ethics of caring for people” seriously.

The first editorial comment in the current issue brings out the problems and prospects of efficacy that are inherent in the ­arrival and implementation of the vaccine. The state’s ethics of care emanating from social responsibility when conjoined with philanthropy of private drug-producing institutions tends to produce unintended consequences as much as it tends to help institutions in protecting their commercial interests. Someone may find in vaccination the purpose of creating favourable opinion among people, even those who were the worst victims of the sudden decision of lockdown occasioned by the eruption of the pandemic.