Showing posts with label GDP growth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GDP growth. Show all posts

Friday, November 15, 2019

Hopes converging to reality

A recently published paper by the RBI (see here) highlights the perceptible change in the macroeconomic outlook of the professional forecasters, in recent months.
The latest round (September 2019) of the professional forecasters' survey (PFS) indicates that professional forecasters are growing increasingly skeptical about the macroeconomic conditions and growth in near term. I believe that in the next round of PFS (November 2019) we shall see further downward revision in the estimates as the data continues to deteriorate.
In my view, the professional forecasters play a critical role in policy formulation and the quality of policy response to critical economic conditions. The fact that in the latest episode the professional forecasters have been quite slow in recognizing, underlines the inadequate policy response so far. The positive take away is that the realization of the gravity of situation is finally happening and it may hopefully reflect in the policy response faster.
The key highlights of the September 2019 round of the PFS could be listed as follows:
1.    The forecast for GDP growth has been downgraded to 6.2% from 7.6% in May 2018. However, since the November forecast of many agencies and research houses is closer to 5% against 6% in September, it is reasonable to excpect that the November round of PFS will see further downward revision in GDP growth estimates.
2.    The forecasters have sharply downgraded the FY20 personal consumption expenditure growth forecast to 5.5% in September 2019 against 7.6% in July 2019. The subdued Diwali season sales may lead to further downward revision in this estimate.
3.    The investment climate is expected to remain poor in 2HFY20 also. The overall forecast for FY20 investment growth has been sharply downgraded to 6% against 9.2% in July 2019. It would not be reasonable to expect further downward revision in investment growth in the November 2019 PFS also.
4.    Surprisingly the forecasters do not expect material deterioration in the fiscal balance. Despite persistently lower GST collections, cut in corporate tax rates and lower than budgeted personal tax collection so far, the forecasters see only 20bps rise in center's fiscal deficit to 3.3% from 3.1% estimated a year ago. No deterioration is expected in the States' fiscal deficit.
 



Friday, September 6, 2019

Debating the slowdown - 3

Continuing from yesterday (see here)
To understand whether the current economic slowdown is structural or cyclical; and whether the problem stems from the demand side of the supply side, I must understand the meaning of this jargon. Not being an economist, I would like to define this jargon from my own prism to suit my layman understanding.
Structural economic slowdown, in my view, means that current economic activity is the best that can be achieved within the current social, legislative, political and economic context. To achieve higher growth that the present level, material improvements (know as structural reforms in common parlance) would be needed in all these spheres at policy, administration and execution levels.
Cyclical economic slowdown on the hand means a temporary disequilibrium between the forces of demand and supply resulting in demand destruction.
A disproportionate change in demand usually occurs due to excess liquidity, change in rates, changes in fiscal incentives, fear of unusual supply changes in near future, etc. Such change in demand that is not matched by proportionate change in supply invariably leads to changes in prices and eliminates the demand from the marginal buyers or marginal producers.
Similarly, a disproportionate change in the supply may occur due to excessive capacity building in anticipation of future demand; disruptions in supply caused by natural events, legislative changes, geo-political conditions or civil unrest etc.
The cyclical slowdown is reversed as the forces of demand and supply return to the state of equilibrium through policy intervention and/or rebalancing of market forces. Usually no material policy changes are needed to manage the cyclical slowdown.
In my view, the slowdown witnessed in Indian economy is structural and would need material improvements in social, political, legislative and economic context of the country.
Damage to economic structure
In my view, the seeds of this slowdown were sown during the NDA regime led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1998-2004). The tenure started with the big blast (May 1998 nuclear test) and was punctuated by major initiatives like NELP (hydrocarbon exploration), SEZ (key reforms in land, labor and tax laws in select zones), NHDP (highways), PMGSY (rural roads), AAY (food security for poor), SGRY (employment for rural poor), SSA (primary education for all), airports privatization, port privatization, Electricity Act 2003, spread of mobile telephoney, 100% FDI in core sectors, etc.
These initiatives excited the global investors at a time when Indian IT professionals were making big impression on global technology canvass. A supportive regime, Y2K problem, easy credit post LTCM and Asian crisis (rates lowest since 1970s) and depressed commodity prices (inflation lowest in decades) helped big investment initiatives.
The problem was that many of these programs were initiated hurriedly without putting an adequate institutional mechanism in place, thus leaving the scope for misuse (of discretionary powers by minister and bureaucrats), litigation (ownership of natural resources), misappropriation (of natural resources by scrupulous allottees), non-compliance (environment and sustainability norms) and wide viability gaps (absence of immediate demand) and thus planting the seeds of financial stress, economic slowdown, mistrust and corruption. Subsequent UPA government watered and nourished these seeds well.
The advanced demand for infrastructure (as distinguished from "need" for infrastructure) impacted sustainability of many large businesses and eventually resulted in near collapse of PSBs and widespread collateral damage to the entire supply chain.
In particular, the road and power sectors are still reeling under the stress.
Damage to the social structure
It is clear that our society has defied the classic Maslow's evolutionary pyramid. It is moving directly from sustenance to aspirational consumption. The demand thus created is neither desirable nor sustainable.
I see that in rural and semi-urban areas, motor cycle has replaced bicycle as a mandatory dowry item. These days, it is almost impossible to marry your daughter if you cannot afford a motorcycle and smart phone in dowry. Many old aged villagers argue that it is a collateral damage of better road and telecommunication connectivity. The road and information highways have taken the markets to people in remotest of the areas, but little efforts have been invested in enhancing the skill and awareness level of the people. Employability and earning potential has not improved commensurate with the aspirations. The social structure is thus damaged.
Secondly, the youngest demography in the world is like a vast reservoir of unexploited energy. If not channelized properly, it can destroy the very core of our social fabric. The rising number of poorly educated, inadequately skilled underemployed, unemployed and employed in disguise youth is no strength for the economy. It is indeed a serious weakness.
On one hand, India is failing in her duties towards the international community (see here); on the other hand we seems to be fast running out of ideas for managing this vast and invaluable resource for our economic good. Rise in petty crimes, instances of civil unrest, deterioration in general compliance standards are just few prominent consequences.
People are spending on motor bikes, smart phones, SUVs, tractors, wedding & birthday celebrations, compromising on food, health, education & training, and shelter needs.
This is raising three damaging trends in the socio-economic milieu of the country:
(a)   Even the people who are better off in absolute monetary terms frustrated and cynical than ever.
(b)   There is an increasing tendency to depend on the State for meeting basic needs.
(c)    The consequent financial stress is gnawing into traditional Indian ethos, where defaulting on debt is considered one of the greatest sin. These days it is not uncommon to see people not only willfully defaulting on loans but also encouraging others to do so.
Distortions created by political structure
The pseudo socialist and quasi feudal nature of our democracy often leads to wasteful expenditure. The policies and plans focused on winning an elections rather than achieving sustainable economic growth and development result in serious misallocation of capital and sub-optimal of resources.
We have seen politicians creating undue and totally unsustainable demand for color televisions, smart phones, laptop computers etc. by manipulating the process of democracy.
We need a political organization that fully assimilates the aspirations of the people, addresses specific local problems, promotes mutual trust & harmony, bars incompetence and knavery from public office, and insures that the best is selected and prepared to rule for the common good.
The legislative problem
Since 1976, our governments have been constitutionally mandated to be "Socialist". Any legislation or policy of the government must pass the test of socialism before being implemented. This constitutional commitment often conflicts with the ideas of free markets, global competition, liberalization, etc. To avoid this conflict the governments mostly try to include a multitude of safeguards any policy framework that is intended to promote free markets and competitive enterprise.
Consequently, we find most of our economic legislations complex and ambivalent, adding the element of unpredictability to the economic decisions. Frequent revisions, roll back and totally avoidable litigations is the outcome of this conflict.
We would need to address all these problems before our economy can move to a higher orbit of growth.
I would like to share my thoughts on material improvements (reforms) that may be considered to make structural corrections to the economy next week.

Thursday, September 5, 2019

Debating the slow down - 2

Continuing the debate on growth slowdown from yesterday (see here), I would argue that the economic growth trends in an economy like India (which is large, diverse and runs a multiparty democratic system) would usually take a longer time to establish. It would be unreasonable to attribute the slow down or acceleration in growth completely to any plan, strategy, measure (legislative or administrative) etc that has been implemented in recent times.
Construction of core infrastructure like power plants, highways, ports, coal mines, etc usually entails a long gestation period that in many extends to more than 5yrs (full term of a government). The full impact of these projects on growth is therefore felt only after these are completed and commissioned. The current acceleration in growth therefore is mostly result of the efforts made in past many years. Similarly, a significant change in the economy like (i) opening more sectors to global competition; (ii) withdrawal of subsidies; (iii) GST etc would usually have immediate adverse impact on the weaker/smaller businesses, employment, asset quality of lenders, consumption, savings, growth rate etc. However, the positive results of these measures would be felt only after some years.
Therefore, in my view attributing acceleration or deceleration in short term growth to the incumbent government is inappropriate, notwithstanding the political rhetoric.
I have said it many times before, and would like to reiterate that the economic policy direction of all government in past 35yrs has remained mostly the same. All governments have pursued the same agenda of liberalization, globalization, inclusion and social equity. For example consider the following:
1.    The process of meaningful tax reforms was started by the then finance minister V. P. Singh (Congress 1984-89) by rationalizing the tax slabs, lowering maximum marginal tax rates substantially, rationalizing wealth tax and introducing CENVAT. The recommendations of Raja J. Chelliah Committee (1991-93) on tax reforms constituted by the government (Congress 1991-96) have since formed the basis of tax reforms in India. All successive governments have implemented these recommendations. No government has sought to reverse or alter the process started by Congress government (1984-89). These recommendations formed the core of all the versions of Direct Tax Code. The origin of the tax proposal like lower tax rate with lesser exemptions and no wealth tax proposed in could also be traced to that.
Committees formed under the chairmanship of other members of Raja Chelliah committee like Govinda Rao, Partha Shome and Vijay kelkar etc. subsequently updated the recommendations to provide further impetus to the entire process of tax reforms in the country.
It was the Finance Minister of H. D. Devegoda led United Front government who presented the most talked about "dream budget".
2.    The recommendations of Narsimham Committee (1991-92) appointed by Dr. Manmohan Singh, the then finance minister in the Congress government, have largely formed the basis of financial and banking sector reforms in the country. Most successive governments have implemented the recommendations consistently. In fact, P. Chidambram, the then finance minister in United Front government (1998) had re-appointed the Narsimham Committee to make recommendations about the second generation banking sector reforms. The report was submitted in 1999 to the NDA government which accepted the recommendations.
3.    In 1991-92, the then government moved decisively to end the distinct socialist bias in the economic policy, that constricted India's economic development and integration of India's economy with the global economy.
Economy and markets were opened for foreign investors. Forex regime was liberalized under LERMS. MRTP restrictions were materially eased. Under new industrial policy a large number of industries and sectors were freed from licensing requirements. Capital controls were substantially eased, and office of capital controller (CCI) was abolished. Capital markets were liberalized. SEBI and NSE were established. The role of public sector was redefined and the process of disinvesting government stake in PSEs initiated. Civil aviation and telecom sectors were opened to private sector. New age private banks were allowed to operate as full service operators. Election process was dramatically improved and enhanced. WTO membership in 1995 also changed a lot of things for India.
Then during 1998-2004, another Reset was effected the government, taking the process started in 1991-92 to a much higher orbit.
The government gave up most of its monopolies. Private sector participation, in core sectors like coal, power, roads & highways, oil & gas, insurance, etc. was allowed. Digital connectivity was provided a massive thrust through New Telecom Policy, along with road and rail connectivity. PM rural road program (PMGSY) has been one of the best government programs in independent India. National connectivity projects like development of Golden Quadrilateral under PPP model, Delhi Metro Rail Project (that became a role model for many mass rapid transport systems (MRTS) in India and abroad, were initiated. The process of disinvestment in PSEs was enhanced substantially. Sarva Siksha Abhiyan was a massive effort (and successful) to bring children to school.
4.    The BJP led NDA government enacted the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act (FRBMA) in 2003. The arch rival Congress led UPA-I government implemented the same in 2004 in letter and spirit. This still forms the very basic of fiscal discipline both at central and state levels, though implementation was suspended in 2009 in the wake of global crisis and need for stimulus. In FY13 stimulus withdrawal commenced and all subsequent Finance Ministers have committed to achieve the targets without fail.
5.    The minority government of Chandrashekhar introduced disinvestment policy first time in 1991. Every successive government since then has not only accepted the policy in principle but also tried to actively integrate it into the evolving economic model. Almost all of them have consistently failed in implementing the policy in right spirit.
6.    The idea of single national market (GST) was mooted by the UPA-1 government as a natural progression from VAT regime implemented during NDA-1 regime. The NDA-2 government implemented the idea.
The point is that the Reset of 1990s did not result in growth acceleration till FY2004. The reform measures in fact resulted in material growth deceleration as there was huge rise in Bank NPAs; two major DFIs (ICICI and IDBI) were eliminated, the third one (IFCI) was decimated; the largest DII UTI was eliminated; all private airlines faced closer or sell out; many new age banks had to be merged with larger peers; thousands of unviable steel and cement plants had to b shut down; many textile mills went out of business; unemployment rose to new heights and BoP worsened.
The eventual outcome was a strong new economy which is - globally competitive in areas like ITeS, Automobile, Pharmaceutical, etc.; interconnected through a wide network of highways; sufficient in power production capacity to fuel growth; a recognized nuclear & space power commanding respect from all significant global players; an attractive market for global automobile and appliance manufacturers; a preferred investment destination amongst emerging market peers.
The period from 2004-2010 witnessed significant rise in long term growth trend, before the global financial crisis changed many things and warranted another reset. That reset began from 2013 and still continues. This period has seen significant deceleration in growth. The existence of many businesses is threatened. The unemployment is high and rising. The financial stress has remain elevated.
But the expected outcome would be a transparent, strong and much less riskier financial system; globally accepted business and accounting practices; stronger, larger and scalable businesses; higher number of organized sector employment opportunities; improved infrastructure; strong and widely acceptable business failure framework.
Insofar as the long term growth trend is concerned, as evident from the below chart, the deceleration started from FY08 and continues. In my view, it will bottom in next two years at much higher level than FY03 level. The acceleration from FY22 onward may also surpass the FY08 peaks; and the uptrend shall last much longer than the previous 5yr (FY04 to FY08) period.
The key risk is failure of the government in securing the confidence of people, especially the youth. A widespread civil unrest against the establishment (not likely in my view) may invalidate my hypothesis completely.
To continue tomorrow.