In the contemporary policy arena, where India strides towards becoming a global economic powerhouse, the concepts of governance are evolving—quietly but profoundly. Amid the debates on federalism, industrial corridors, and digital infrastructure, two paradigms of governance are emerging: polytopic and prolectic governance. These are not mere academic abstractions; they are lenses through which India’s future can be more consciously shaped, especially through the strategic push for Global Capability Centres (GCCs) as seen in Gujarat’s GCC Policy 2025.
The Rise of the GCC Moment
India today hosts around 1800 Global Capability Centres (GCCs), employing more than 2.16 million professionals and contributing upwards of $65 billion in export revenues. The transformation of these GCCs—from back-office support systems into AI-driven knowledge and innovation centres—is not accidental. It is underwritten by a new form of strategic imagination.
The Gujarat Government’s GCC Policy 2025 is a case in point. With a vision to attract 250 new GCCs and create 50000 high-skill jobs, the policy provides capital subsidies, plug-and-play infrastructure, and a predictable governance framework. But more than its fiscal incentives, the policy is an implicit battleground between two styles of governance: polytopic, where development arises from interaction among multiple moral and functional nodes; and prolectic, where governance anticipates future capabilities and scripts them in advance.
What Is Polytopic Governance?
Drawing inspiration from Myrdal’s theory of cumulative causation, polytopic governance refers to a bottom-up, multi-nodal system of growth where feedback loops—between education, industry, urban policy, and social justice—trigger synergistic development. It values public sentiment, spatial equity, and historical legacies. In India’s federal democracy, this often manifests as states experimenting with novel models, from Delhi’s mohalla clinics to Kerala’s human development-first planning. In Gujarat’s GCC Policy, polytopic elements are evident in the focus on tier-2 cities (Vadodara, Surat, Rajkot), suggesting a decentralised logic of job dispersal and skill formation beyond megacities.
What Is Prolectic Governance?
The word prolectic, from the Greek “prolepsis” (anticipation), refers to a future-oriented design of institutions. It echoes Keynes’s idea that the economy is governed as much by “animal spirits” as by long-term expectations. In governance, this means embedding anticipatory intelligence—what a region must become—into current frameworks. The Gujarat GCC Policy reveals prolectic DNA in its aim to align local capacities with global trends like GenAI, fintech, cybersecurity, and ESG accounting. The policy is not reacting to the present; it is creating a future India wants to be part of.
Gujarat GCC Policy: A Polytopic-Prolectic Hyphen
The genius of the Gujarat model lies in blending both these paradigms. On the one hand, the state uses classic prolectic moves: geo-tagging of talent clusters, startup incubation, and single-window facilitation systems that make it “GCC ready” before firms arrive. On the other, its emphasis on local universities, vernacular training modules, and collaboration with smaller municipalities for ease-of-doing-business reflects a deeply polytopic instinct.
This policy synergy mirrors what Amartya Sen calls “development as capability expansion.” It is not merely about attracting investment, but fostering judgment, autonomy, and plural pathways of excellence.
The Rostow vs Myrdal Debate Revisited
W.W. Rostow’s five-stage growth model—from traditional society to high mass consumption—suggests that all countries follow a linear path of industrialisation, led by elite planning. In contrast, Gunnar Myrdal’s cumulative causation theory shows that development is a disequilibrium process: advantages compound in some regions unless deliberately counterbalanced.
The polytopic vs prolectic lens does not discard either theorist. Instead, it creates a dialectic between them. Prolectic governance often mirrors Rostow’s elite-led design, while polytopic governance resonates with Myrdal’s emphasis on spatial equity and feedback loops. Gujarat’s policy operates at this intersection—elite-visioned, yet feedback-embedded.
National Lessons from Gujarat
Gujarat is not an outlier—it is a prototype. Other states can emulate this polytopic-prolectic duality. Tamil Nadu, for instance, could merge its industrial depth with regional skilling hubs. Uttar Pradesh could evolve its expressway-driven model by layering soft capacities in design, data, and climate analytics. The Centre too, through platforms like Digital India and Skill India, must frame policies that are both anticipatory and pluralistic.
Crucially, the Centre-State relationship must be rebalanced. Prolectic federalism should allow the Union to set grand futures—AI missions, climate goals, digital inclusion. Polytopic subsidiarity must empower states to execute contextually, ensuring moral plurality and institutional variety.
The Global Frame: India’s Soft Power Moment
Global investors are no longer just seeking cheap labour or tax havens. They are seeking governance intelligence. India’s advantage lies in showing that it can host global capabilities without erasing regional diversity. This is India’s “postcolonial comparative advantage”: the ability to hold modernity and pluralism together. A GCC is not just a business node—it is a governance innovation zone.
In this light, India’s soft power is not merely cultural (yoga, films, cuisine) but procedural. The world is watching how India governs its growth.
Final Word: Transformational Opportunity
India stands at a polytopic-prolectic crossroad. One road dreams boldly but risks elitism. The other includes deeply but may fragment. The Gujarat GCC Policy shows that we need not choose. The future of India’s development lies in choreographing anticipatory governance with moral multiplicity. That is not just good economics. It is high democratic art.
Devanshu Jha is a public policy expert and thought leader .He is an alumnus of London School of Economics, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and IIM RANCHI.
