Million Pillars Economy/Events

Warm welcome to Million Pillars Economy Theory Development Project

WE decode the science of inclusive economic development!!!

Million Pillars Economy for inclusive development! Inclusive development for a better world! Contribute economic ideas for a better world!

Project Home | Project Library | Budding Economist Badge | FAQ| Million Pillars Economy (Theory) | Events

Page edit instruction: You can add reports on the events relating to Million Pillars Economy here. Please use the first level title = First Level= to start each new event reporting on this page

Report on the First Mock Parliament Debate conducted in Thiruvananthapuram city of Kerala in India

The first batch of interns (a mixed group of UG and PG students of Economics) at the Seventh State Finance Commission of Kerala, India has organized a Mock Parliament Debate on the need for developing Million Pillars Economy Theory on 13th May 2025 at the facility of the Finance Commission in Thiruvananathapuram. A second debate will be conducted on 17th May 2025 at the same facility by swapping the Treasury Bench and Opposition in the Mock Parliament.

Should India build its economy bottom-up, relying on millions of decentralized MSMEs as structural pillars? When we step back and think about India’s economic future this two visions comes to our minds. While one is symbolized by looming skyscrapers representing centralized power, while the other is characterized by the humble spending of millions of grassroots small businesses which is described as the ‘Million Pillar Economy’. Not only is it centered around growth, but keeps middle class and the lower middle class section at the center of the the growth. Through reflections on the promises and pitfalls of this approach, we understood that resolving this question is not about choosing winners and losers, but rather, what the “soul” of our development is about seeks to define the balance between ambition and individual dignity to realise the developed India in the nearest future possible.

Proposition Summary: Why MPE Is the Future

We’re not building an empire of a few towers. We’re building a nation of a million homes — strong, self-reliant, and inclusive.

1. Economic Inclusivity & Reach
   • 63M MSMEs contribute 30% to GDP and 45% of exports. They’re already here — now we just need to empower them.
   • Grassroots focus ensures economic equity across geography, gender, and caste.
   • MPE turns job seekers into job creators, reducing dependence on centralized welfare.
2. Scalability & Digital Enablement
   • UPI, Aadhaar stack, ONDC, etc., lower entry barriers — MPE can scale via tech.
   • Cluster models + Unified Enterprise IDs make policy execution modular and manageable.
3. Counter-Crisis Buffer
   • In downturns, resource circulation through MSMEs ensures economic resilience. Small enterprises act like thousands of mini-injectors for liquidity into the system
4. Women & Marginalized Empowerment
   • Targeted programs for SC/ST, women, and rural entrepreneurs directly attack social inequity.
   • Over 38% of beneficiaries of RAMP are women-led businesses.

Opposition Summary: The Cracks in the Pillars

A million pillars sound poetic, but try building a skyscraper on sand.

1. Structural Weakness & Over-Romanticization
   • Financial fragility: MSMEs rely on informal credit; public schemes are underutilized or bureaucratic.
   • Tech backwardness: Many lack basic digital infrastructure, let alone AI or blockchain.
   • Market isolation: Without branding or distribution, MSMEs can't compete beyond their districts.
2. Economic Theory Disputes
   • Economies of scale: Fragmentation reduces efficiency and competitiveness.
   • Lewis Dual Sector Model: India should shift labor from informal to formal sectors. MPE reverses this logic.
   • Comparative Advantage: Not everyone should be forced into entrepreneurship — misallocation of labor looms large.
3. Environmental & Social Sustainability Gaps
   • MSMEs often pollute more per unit due to lack of regulation, technology, and awareness.
   • The so-called "decentralized eco-friendliness" isn’t inherently green — it's just invisible.
4. Export Mismatch
   • National policies (FTP 2023, Kerala Industrial Policy) cater to large-scale export units, not cottage industries.
   • Global trade standards are tough — you can’t scale exports with uncertified goods from underfunded micro-factories.

Key Clash Zones

Key Clash Zones

Clash Point	Proposition (For MPE)	Opposition (Against MPE)
Vision of Development	Inclusive, grassroots-first, bottom-up economy	Structured, regulated, formal-sector led economy
Scalability	Tech and cluster-based implementation enable national rollout	Fragmentation causes inefficiency, cost escalation
Export Potential	MSMEs can be trained, certified, and made globally competitive	MSMEs aren’t equipped to meet global compliance or scale
Job Creation	Empowers local talent, decentralizes opportunity	Jobs are often informal, underpaid, and precarious
Crisis Resilience	Acts as a shock-absorber during downturns	Lack of sustained market demands
Environmental Impact	Potential for decentralized eco-friendly clusters	Environmental standards are often ignored

Strong Rebuttals

FOR MPE:

• "You can’t talk about GDP growth while ignoring 110 million people who make up the foundation of it."
• "If the economy is a tree, the MSMEs are the roots — you don’t build strong growth by watering only the top leaves."
• "Every skyscraper starts with a million bricks. Let’s not dismiss the value of the brick because it’s small."

AGAINST MPE:

• "Romanticizing entrepreneurship is dangerous — not everyone wants to be a boss, some just want a stable job."
• "A million powerless enterprises don’t equal one empowered economy."
• "our opposition is not towards the dream of decentralised growth, but the quiet withdrawal of the state, disguised as expansion."

In the end, what truly determines the value of the ‘Million Pillar Economy’ is not mere statistics but the values we choose to prioritize. This value is dual sided; it implores us toward an all-encompassing possibility, in faith of the creativity possessed by an average individual to harness markets and transform communities, while also warning of lacking foresight and disempowerment. With this exercise, being on both ends of the conversation, the realisation of non-existence of one ideal model which is without a flaw is fallible ideology, as each requires vision and oversight unique to its demand and the economy’s functions and current structure.

Participants

Mock Parliament Debate on 13/05/2025

Topic: Million pillars economy for and against
Speaker: Prof. Hari Kurup PhD, Advisor to the 7th SFC, Kerala
Prime Minister @ the Mock Parliament: Vashenee K T (IGNOU, M A Sociology)
Minister of Economic Policy @ the Mock Parliament: Vishnu N Narayan, (St. Thomas College Thrissur, BA Economics)

Mock Parliament treasury bench members

Name	Institution	Course	Topic debated
Bhagya Ramanunni	Christ University Bangalore	B A Economics	The role of MSMEs Global supply chain
Mufeedha Manhappulan	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	Characteristics of MSMEs
Ahadal Sihadh S K	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	MSMEs in India

Mock Parliament Opposition Leader: Suhasini Tiwari (Christ University Bangalore, MA in Applied Economics)

Mock Parliament opposition members

Name	Institution	Course	Topic debated
Farhana M P	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	Structural weakness of MSMEs
Anjali T J	Christ College Irinjalakkuda	B A Economics	Mismatch in trends of MSMEs
Nivedita Arun	Christ University Bangalore	B A Economics Honours	Economic principles analysis on why million pillars economy won't work
Fida Bisma K	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	Industrial export policy

Mock Parliament Debate on 17/05/2025

Topic: Million pillars economy for and against
Speaker: Nirmal Roy PhD, Advisor to the 7th SFC
Mock Parliament Prime Minister: Suhasini Tiwari (Christ University Bangalore, MA in Applied Economics)
Mock Parliament Minister of Economic Policy: Diya Nair D R

Mock Parliament treasury bench members

Name	Institution	Course	Topic debated
Farhana M P	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	Inclusive growth and sustainability of MSMEs
Anjali T J	Christ College Irinjalakkuda	B A Economics	Trade investment and technological innovation in MSMEs
Fida Bisma K	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	Policy implemented for MSMEs

Opposition leader @ the Mock Parliament: Vashenee K T (IGNOU, M A Sociology)

Mock Parliament opposition members

Name	Institution	Course	Topic debated
Vishnu N Narayan	St. Thomas College Thrissur	B A Economics	Rural urban disparities
Bhagya Ramanunni	Christ University Bangalore	B A Economics	Exploitation
Mufeedha Manhappulan	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	Sustainability
Ahadal Sihadh S K	University of Calicut	Integrated M A in Development studies	Market condition
Aardra R Unnithan			Policy implication

Mock Parliament event coordinators: Bijini & Aparna, Research Associates, 7th SFC Kerala