On the other hand, Dr Yunus made this forbidden value judgment -- he even went further and tried out his judgment in the real world; therefore he no more remained an economist. This is probably the reason behind Dr Yunus not getting the Nobel Prize for economics. This naturally brings out a serious question, what is economics for?

1. What economics does:
a. Taking cues from human experience, it attempts to fit models and develop indexes.
b. These models are then used to predict the possible implications of government policies.
c. It can develop indexes to evaluate the successes of a policy after its implementation, whether the targets are being achieved, thus providing useful feedback to the government
2. What economics is not good for:
a. It cannot innovate a policy for a new situation, since there is no previous experience.
b. If there is an innovation in technology, or any other field that affects the economy, all predictions of economics go haywire. It is a "Big-Bang" for economics (as all laws of physics disappear in a Big-Bang). Therefore economists have an inherent aversion to innovations. (Its effect can be seen in policies governing the Third World. Naturally, the innovation and breakthrough of Dr Yunus was not eyed with reverence either.)
c. Leadership to a society, or to a nation, needs futuristic vision and imagination. So economics, adhering to past experience alone, is not suitable for giving leadership to a nation, particularly to a Third World country that has an untrodden path ahead. So the leadership here needs to innovate policies to enhance the quality of life of its common people, to reduce the disparity among its people created mainly because of a history of colonial rule where orthodox economics has little to contribute.
3. What has gone wrong with the Third World
a. Economics was developed after the industrial revolution in Europe, so it does not have direct experience of a pre-industrial situation, while most of the Third World still remains in the pre-industrial era.
b. Third World presents an entirely new world to economics which got developed in industrialised Europe. The people, their attitudes towards life, their reactions and behaviour are entirely different here. So economic polices forced in these countries gave rise to confusion and disorder, reducing employment, increasing disparity and making the people lazy and corrupt.
c. Thus efforts to apply existing economic theories did not succeed in the Third World, nor did the political and social theories of the West. Unfortunately, the blame has been put squarely on the people of these countries, not on the limitation of the theories or models used.

To probe further, economics does not consider as demand the basic requirements of a person who does not have the capability to purchase the same. On the other hand that person is made of flesh and blood, and in order to survive has real demands which a government has to take care of. Similarly economics does not consider a person to be loan-worthy if s/he does not have the required collateral, but Dr Yunus crossed this dictum and proved the opposite. This attitude of economics has also resulted in the choking of small industries based on indigenous technology and innovation in the Third World. The policies of the government, guided by orthodox economics, assume that any industry, whether large or small, starts with a capital investment, and so is supposed to register itself, comply with all regulations, and pay taxes right from the beginning. Unfortunately, that is not the way industrialization takes root in a country like Bangladesh which is still in the pre-industrial stage.

If we consider the basic philosophy of development, it entails the exploitation of natural resources to the benefit of mankind, it needs improvisation, innovation and vision in order to set foot on an untrodden path. Which field of knowledge and experience is most suited to these requirements? The answer would be, definitely, technology. If we now look back at global history, the phenomenal economic development of the recent times owes completely to the industrial revolution that took place in Europe, and which is still unfolding.

This revolution happened solely due to technology innovators who turned themselves into entrepreneurs as well. Arkwright, Cartwright, George Stevenson, Edison, Marconi, Ford, Sony, IBM, Microsoft -- it is all the same story. It is only the technology innovators who created large businesses in the world, no one else!

We talk about poverty alleviation in the Third World. Organised micro-credit championed by Prof Yunus has provided a breakthrough, and the initial boost to this end, but to take the results further, and to sustain the development we need something else. This something can only come from proliferation of small industries through indigenous-technology based small industries catering to the needs of the common people around, providing affordable technical solutions for an improvement of the quality of life. This cannot be achieved through imported technology, nor through export of handicrafts only. This, in turn, needs freedom of technology innovation, and freedom to apply these results for the benefit of the common people through commercial enterprises.

Unfortunately, in most of the Third World, including Bangladesh, this freedom has been severely curbed through tax and other regulatory policies, and the inevitable harassment from corrupt officials associated with it and who mostly follow the policies of the past colonial rulers who deliberately intended to destroy local industries. Recently this freedom is again receiving a setback in the garb of globalization and free trade. Although the champions of such global policies promote technology innovation and technology based enterprises in their own countries, the advice to the Third World has always been otherwise.

Therefore, either economics has to change its basic philosophy of remaining above criticism by not doing a value judgment, or it should limit its role in shaping policies, particularly in the Third World. All the governments in these countries, and all the international development agencies, should consider this suggestion seriously, and should consider having more technology experts in their policymaking bodies which are presently overwhelmed by economics personnel only.

The same thinking goes for leadership in the Third World. India and Malaysia were fortunate to have Nehru and Mahathir respectively -- both having educational backgrounds in science -- who could steer their countries to have sturdy foundations for development.

Dr K Siddique-e-Rabbani is Professor of Physics, Dhaka University.