This post is my 25th on Substack! And I am delayed like never before. There were many reasons/excuses. First, my laptop was acting up even after a hard disk change. The literature review threatened to be never-ending. Doubts whether I shouldn’t be publishing this post elsewhere, maybe in a journal, despite the never-ending waits. Diversions. Laziness. Finally, a writer I follow persuaded me to break my rules as early as possible, lest I become prey to cycles of failure and guilt, causing burnout. Moreover, I was determined to write something that gave me a minimum level of satisfaction, even if it took some time, rather than post something merely to be on schedule.
In my last post on the official language, I omitted the operational details of a new official language policy if one were to follow the European model. As one of my readers commented, the Internal Revenue Service in the US provides information in Bengali, Gujarati, and Punjabi. So why not the Government of India engage in these and other languages too when the marginal cost would be much less as compared to the goodwill that could be generated.
Also left unstated were the possibilities of hidden and unused political mileage coupons hanging just for the picking, especially in states such as Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Bengal, where the ruling party would like to improve its footprint. Moreover, there are the consequent employment avenues created and the promotion of these languages and their cultures. Lost in the narrative was my angst against organisational time, energy, and focus being frittered away while pursuing creative compliance. The compliance lessons provide a link to this week’s post.
Regulation or standards are mandated rules or suggested behaviour to obtain specific desirable outcomes. Compliance could mean the literal adherence to such rules and behaviour, the actual outcomes, or the process of getting such results. This definition is extempore and unedited.
Compliance can be at four levels. International standards require compliance at the national level, as in nuclear safeguards or anti-money laundering. National level regulation could even require regional or state government level compliance, as in the three-language formula. At a more disaggregated level, compliance can also be by organisations and individuals. A host of factors determines compliance at any of these levels. There is a vast body of literature on the subject cutting across several disciplines: law, political science, psychology, economics, sociology, organisational behaviour, organisation theory, game theory, neo-institutionalism, criminology, etc. I had personally found this very exciting in my research on organisational compliance, but let me not detain you there.
The most critical factors determining compliance include the legitimacy of regulation, and trust in the issuing authority, whether an international body, government or regulator. Legitimacy is a theoretical construct. One should not take it in a literal sense. Legitimacy is determined by factors including clarity of the regulation, whether it considers market practices, etc. If large sections view the official language policy as lacking legitimacy, compliance will be weak, absent, or cosmetic.
In this post, I discuss individual compliance with mask requirements, where I am bracketing the entire gamut of social distancing and related safety guidelines. I base the title on the influential treatise, ‘Why People Obey the Law,’ (Princeton University Press, 2006) by Tom Tyler, now Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at the Yale Law School. He would have debated whether to title his book, alternatively, Why People Disobey the Law. It is a matter of perception and perhaps depends on whether compliance or noncompliance is more dominant. Similarly, I could have titled my post, Why People Don’t Wear Masks?
Please click on the maroon link to access the post (20 minutes read with ten single-spaced pages, 4086 words, at last count):