
The affection economy
As old orders replace themselves, new economic forms emerge. The emergence of the information age gave us the data economy and the attention economy. In today's world — decoupled, divided, atomistic — another term must receive our consideration: The affection economy.
Success today — in trade, in innovation, in the creation of value — depends upon how skillfully you curate a community, how effectively you kindle kinship, how carefully you nurture cohorts. Cohorts, kinships, communities: They are the building blocks of co-operation and economic success.
We have already seen glimmerings of this understanding permeate even the most rational, realist spheres of international relations. What, after all, do we mean when we speak of 'like-minded' nations? Like-mindedness creates commonality. It creates a shared purpose and ensures a common direction. It means trust endures even through the temporary turbulence of the sort that the American president is currently inflicting.
The affection economy has visible effects on the corporate world as well. Both companies and countries compete for affection; they expand their footprint through a dedication to empathetic engagement and care.
The smartest places, like Dubai, have designed entire demographic and growth policies around curated communities. Visas are offered apparently for commercial reasons, but actually to create a golden cohort of affection. The purpose of their national policy is to make people embrace Dubai. Like Dubai, fly Dubai, buy Dubai, live Dubai.
The UAE may be the perfect exemplar, but it is not the only one. Other countries are constructing or have constructed soft power strategies around communities of interest. Germany is one; Australia and New Zealand, too — and of course Singapore.
Corporations have done it. In India, the stakeholder capitalism that Dhirubhai Ambani fostered — filling stadiums with tens of thousands of co-owners of the Reliance enterprise — offers an analogy. It percolates to the company's thinking even today, with the equity community being succeeded by the data equity community, taking broadband to the bottom of the pyramid.
The US is a special case. Companies like Apple have built on that foundation to create global production and consumption networks that look to California for inspiration. The federal government has largely let the American private sector run the affection economy.
It is this stored-up affection capital that President Donald Trump is running down so speedily. What differentiates countries and companies today is the networks they lead. It has long been taken for granted that China lacked soft power, that it was respected but not loved. In the 21st century, this placed a hard ceiling on its rise. The US had no such hard ceiling till it constructed one for itself.
How has the affection economy come to dominate? The flattening of the world by digital technology has had something to do with it. It replaced organic connections created by neighbourhoods and workplaces with the more diffuse, detached and delicate bonds that are created online.
But this and individualisation have been in progress for decades. Political scientist Robert Putnam developed a theory in the 1990s of 'social capital', explaining how person-to-person connections were foundational for modern America. In his book Bowling Alone, he argued that this social capital was on the decline, taking civic consciousness with it. This would cause problems, as the community was the true determinant and differentiator of success. Francis Fukuyama demonstrated in his book Trust (1995) how social capital created trust within nations, and how trust led to stability and economic growth.
Putnam is not surprised that the desolation of communities has caused the rise of extreme movements. Political activist Steve Bannon has publicly said that Bowling Alone inspired him and others to identify their political movement as a cure for the social isolation felt by many Americans. This phenomenon is being replicated around the world: Individualistic societies are abandoning their lonely members to such extreme communities. These groups and movements may be only a dark imitation of the true solidarity and fellowship that creates trust, but they are still communities for those who have no other.
The final push that transformed global society would have to be a global event. Covid provided that impetus. It was a period when isolation deepened, the workplace became irrelevant, and the appeal of the solo actor was enhanced. Today, the digital nomad and the lone-wolf terrorist are two sides of the same coin.
The future will belong to those who best understand that advancements in the technology and economic realms have brought human collectives back a full circle socially. We have indeed returned to a primal state, where communities matter more than anything else. The currency for prosperity, influence and well-being at this time is care and belonging. Prime Minister Narendra Modi read this right when he spoke of vasudhaiva kutumbakam: One Earth, One Family, One Future. It is indeed the time for a return on and to affection.
The writer is president, Observer Research Foundation

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push
The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court has ruled. The split court on Thursday lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was among those who wouldn't have allowed the cuts, along with the court's three liberals. The high court did keep the Trump administration anti-DEI guidance on future funding blocked with a key vote from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, however. The decision marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with cancelling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life'. The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination'. The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training programme cuts that the administration also linked to DEI. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. Five conservative justices agreed, and Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a short opinion in which he criticised lower-court judges for not adhering to earlier high court orders. 'All these interventions should have been unnecessary,' Gorsuch wrote. The plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups had unsuccessfully argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. They said that defunding studies midway though halts research, ruins data already collected and ultimately harms the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a lengthy dissent in which she criticized both the outcome and her colleagues' willingness to continue allowing the administration to use the court's emergency appeals process. 'This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,' she wrote, referring to the fictional game in the comic strip 'Calvin and Hobbes.' In June, US District Judge William Young in Massachusetts had ruled that the cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court had left Young's ruling in place


Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Do Bengaluru rentals compare with San Francisco? ₹50,000 rent for 500 sq ft spark outcry among netizens
Prospective tenants in India's IT hub say Bengaluru's rental market is beginning to mirror San Francisco's, with demand far outstripping supply and even modest flats listed at ₹50,000 for a 500 sq ft 1BHK. Bengaluru's rental market is mirroring San Francisco's, with modest 1BHKs going for ₹ 50,000 as demand far outstrips supply, tenants say. (Representational Image)(Unsplash ) Landlords maintain this reflects the 'market rate,' but tenants argue it strains household budgets and fuels broader inflation, leaving workers with little choice between paying exorbitant rents or enduring long commutes from the city's outskirts. Is Bengaluru headed the San Francisco way? One tenant recently took to Reddit to call out 'unchecked greed' in Bengaluru's landlords, citing exorbitant rents for matchbox-sized apartments. 'Bengaluru seems to be headed the San Francisco way. There's zero market regulation here, and there's always some rich person who will rent that HSR 500 sq ft 1BHK for ₹50,000; he doesn't care,' the post read. The Redditor said that while they were currently managing by staying with relatives thanks to work-from-home flexibility, the hunt for a reasonably priced flat was proving exhausting. Also read: Laid-off Bengaluru techie's ₹78k EMI reignites rent-versus-buy home debate Another Bengaluru resident recalled how rents have shot up in just a few years. 'Three years ago, I was paying ₹20,000 for a 2BHK,' they said. 'Today, the same flat costs ₹32,000, and it's unbelievable.' The Redditor said that tenants are left with a tough choice: move to the outskirts and spend hours in traffic, or stay closer to the office and 'pay through your nose for rent, food, and groceries.' They even remarked that at this rate, 'living in hotels might soon be the cheaper option.' According to an American tech real estate marketplace, apartment rents in San Francisco start at around $750 ( ₹65,000 per month) for a studio in Broadway and $771 ( ₹60,000 per month) for a one-bedroom in the eastern suburb of Hunters Point, and can go over $1,900 ( ₹1.6 lakh per month) for higher-end units. Owners change tune after Covid Other prospective tenants pointed out how landlords' attitudes shifted after the pandemic. 'Before Covid, my owner only wanted us to keep the house nicely and never raised the rent. But once the IT companies reopened, her house manager insisted on matching the 'market price.' She is incredibly wealthy and doesn't need the money, but suddenly wanted more,' a tenant shared. A Reddit user recalled house-hunting in Mumbai 25 years ago. 'Brokers and flat owners were some of the most unscrupulous and greedy people I ever met. I was so traumatised that I vowed never to be at their mercy again. Within a year, I saved for a down payment and haven't looked back since.' Now based in Bengaluru, the Redditor said, 'Brokers and owners are mostly a broken bunch of people.' Also Read: Will US tariffs alter the landscape of luxury and affordable housing in India? 'Landlords who have invested ₹ 1.85 crore in an apartment are unlikely to settle for lower rental yields' Several users posted that a few developers were selling cramped, poor-quality homes at exorbitant prices. One Redditor pointed to a recent example in north Bengaluru's Bagaluru, where a relative had purchased a premium apartment. The 3BHK, priced at ₹1.85 crore, offered little more than a single balcony, two 'cage-sized toilets,' and interiors made of what they described as substandard materials. 'For that kind of money, you'd expect quality and space. Instead, these are matchbox apartments,' the Redditor wrote, adding that anyone who has invested such large sums is unlikely to accept lower rental yields. In their view, this mindset contributes to inflated rents, since owners see even steep monthly charges as negligible compared to the crores they've already sunk into buying the property. Another tenant agreed, saying that builders and developers have turned affordability into a joke. 'They pass on the high costs to buyers, and the buyers, in turn, pass them on to tenants. It's a cycle, and tenants are always the ones squeezed,' the post said.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
14 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's new visa crackdown: 6,000 student permits cancelled, over 55 mn foreign nationals face scrutiny
In its latest crackdown on immigration, the US Department of State said that it is reviewing the records of more than 55 million foreigners who hold valid US visas for potential revocation or deportable violation of the country's immigration rules. In a bid to intensify its crackdown on immigrants, the US Department of State said that it is reviewing the records of more than 55 million foreigners who hold valid US visas for potential revocation or deportable violation of the country's immigration rules. The move was first reported by The Associated Press. In a clarfication statement, the department made it clear that all of the foreigners who currently hold valid US visas are subject to 'continuous vetting' for any indication that they could be ineligible for the American visa, including those who are already admitted into the country. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD They noted that if evidence of violation came to light, the visa would be revoked, and if the visa holder were in the US, they would be subjected to deportation. 'The State Department revokes visas any time there are indications of a potential ineligibility, which includes things like any indicators of overstays, criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity, or providing support to a terrorist organisation,' a department spokesperson said. People with 'anti-American views' are not allowed The remarks from the State Department came after an announcement on Tuesday in which the Trump administration made it clear that it will look for 'anti-American' views, including on social media, when assessing the applications of people wanting to live in the United States. US Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS), which handles requests to stay in the US or become a citizen, noted that it would expand its vetting process to the social media postings of applicants and that 'reviews for anti-American activity will be added to that vetting'. 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' said a USCIS spokesperson, Matthew Tragesser. 'US Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible. Immigration benefits – including to live and work in the United States – remain a privilege, not a right.' The government's crackdown on immigrants intensifies Initially, the Trump administration said that it would focus only on dangerous criminals. However, thousands of people are being arrested daily. According to The New York Times, this week, the government is on track to deport 400,000 people in 2025. Authorities have gone after working immigrants through unprecedented raids of restaurants, construction sites, and farms, which prompted protests in several cities across the country. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Earlier this week, the Department of State noted that it has revoked over 6,000 student visas since Trump's return to office. They argued that the visas were revoked due to various violations, such as overstaying visas and legal infractions, including assault, driving under the influence, and terrorism-related activities. Of those, nearly 4,000 visas were revoked due to confirmed violations, and 200–300 were linked to terrorism or support for designated terrorist entities. Apart from this, the Trump administration had mandated in-person interviews for nearly all visa applicants and imposed other layers of scrutiny. Hence, the current vetting expansion represents a significant escalation in post-issuance monitoring.