Reforms often involves concentrated costs, diffused benefits. Also the benefits rarely have direct attribution. Politically that means they are a net loser. If a reform has unanimity it is often at the expense of sound design or massive unviable compensation guarantees- see GST

So there is no way to avoid some use of political capital. Governments should earn political capital through other means - welfare programs, infrastructure- physical and social, and social, cultural and nationalist issues, and spend that political capital for reforms.

Do the *effects* of reforms, such as higher growth, become a net political gain, even without direct attribution? Perhaps over the long run, but too noisy to conclude anything because economic policy is not only about reforms. Getting other things right also matters a lot.

So when should you reform? Either in a crisis - it is easier to sell it (and political costs are lower) or when govt. has already earned a lot of political capital that it can put to use. But never seek unanimity given the asymmetry of concentrated costs, diffused benefits....

..: rather build broad consensus (not to be confused with unanimity) among policy ecosystem with all the discussions, committee reports etc. and have “sleeper cells” in govt. And then when the time is right, activate the sleeper cells and push it through.

When it is pushed through that consensus will suddenly see opposition as well, because no smart politician will miss a political opportunity to use that asymmetry. And that’s ok. It will happen always as long periods of discussion and cold storage and then frenzied activity.

See even 1991 reforms. Many of them were things discussed for ages. See the opposition to privatisation - say of a Balco, when it happened. The design will take years ans decades, the action will only be days, at best weeks. That’s the nature of it in a democracy. (End)