OPINION | The social contract from Brooklyn to Bihar represents a tussle between imagination and fiscal gravity 

A state that is already fiscally strained was asked to believe that millions of permanent jobs could be created despite slow recruitment, limited institutional capacity and low levels of higher education.

But feasibility alone does not explain the outcome. The verdict also reflected alliance arithmetic, caste coalition shifts and a sustained campaign that labelled large-scale welfare promises as unsustainable freebies. Anti-incumbency within segments of the alliance further complicated the picture.

The result therefore cannot be read as a rejection of Tejashwi’s moral argument. It reflects a voter assessment that the scale of the promise exceeded the reach of the current state.

The instinct behind the promise remains significant. It revived a constitutional spirit embedded in the Directive Principles, which view livelihood as an obligation of the state rather than an act of generosity. Bihar’s result does not silence that aspiration. It demands a more credible route to it.

Brooklyn’s mandate for a renewed welfare politics

Across the world, in New York City, Zohran Mamdani won the mayoralty on a platform that promised affordability, access and relief in a metropolis that has become hostile to working class survival. His proposals included a rent freeze for one million apartments, free buses citywide and universal childcare.

The credibility of his agenda rested not only on ideological appeal but also on structural conditions.

New York has robust tax bases, established public service institutions and existing frameworks such as rent stabilization laws, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and previous universal pre-K programmes. Voters therefore saw expansion rather than reinvention. Mamdani’s support was also driven by strong union
mobilisation, organisational capacity of the city’s progressive networks and dissatisfaction with centrist incumbents. His victory reflects a coalition as much as a policy endorsement.

His ideas draw from Karl Polanyi’s warning that markets for essentials such as housing and transport must remain embedded in social institutions. When they are left to private forces alone, societies drift toward instability. Mamdani’s mandate signals a desire to restore that balance.

Why one promise passed the credibility test and the other did not

The contrasting outcomes in Patna and Brooklyn turn on a simple but decisive point. Mamdani’s promises were built on institutions that already exist. Tejashwi’s promise would have required building entirely new administrative machinery at unprecedented speed and scale. Voters in both places may desire stronger state intervention, but they judge credibility through the prism of institutional muscle. Moral intention matters, but capacity determines whether the promise feels real.

This is where John Rawls and Max Weber meet. Rawls asks governments to organise society in ways that benefit the least advantaged. Weber reminds political actors that ethics of conviction must be paired with ethics of responsibility. When ideals outpace institutions, they risk turning hope into mistrust. Bihar’s verdict reflects this caution. New York’s verdict reflects confidence that ambition can be matched with systems already in place.

A larger shift in the global social contract

Both stories point to a rising dissatisfaction with market-centric governance. As

inequality widens, families face forms of insecurity that private markets cannot resolve. Joseph Stiglitz describes this as an age of private affluence and public squalor. Whether in Patna or Brooklyn, citizens are asking the state to step back into roles from which it had steadily retreated.

The difference lies not in the desire for change but in the pathways available to realise it. In Bihar, the social contract is strained by limited fiscal space and fragile institutions. In New York, it can be stretched through targeted taxation, public infrastructure and incremental expansions of existing programmes. The ambitions are similar. The capacities are not.

Rethinking the boundaries of promise

The election in Bihar does not close the door on economic justice. It sharpens the questions that future leaders must answer. How can a poor state create meaningful work without overpromising permanent employment? How can administrative bottlenecks be reduced so that public recruitment becomes credible? And how can dignity be expanded without straining a fragile treasury?

Mamdani’s win, meanwhile, shows that when moral ambition is paired with institutional grounding, voters are willing to imagine a larger role for the state.

In the end, the new social contract will not emerge from either fiscal conservatism or unbounded promises. It will come from leaders who can pair moral imagination with realistic institutions. Bihar’s verdict and New York’s mandate together show that citizens are not rejecting welfare politics. They are demanding competence alongside compassion.

From the lanes of Patna to the boroughs of New York, the lesson is clear. Dignity requires both vision and a believable path. The future of the social contract will be written not by shrinking expectations or inflating promises but by building the institutions that make justice deliverable. 

(Shubham Kumar is an academic lawyer and public policy professional working on access to justice and constitutionalism, and is associated with Kompass.)

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.