Vijay Kumar Gaba

 Sitting on the banks of river Betwa, overlooking the majestic Orchha palace and Lord Raja Ram’s temple, I had a fascinating talk with two farmers from a nearby village. During the course of our discussion, I learnt that they are real brothers; have a family of 11 people, including grandfather, parents and five children aged 3yr to 13yrs including three sons and two daughters; own less than one acre of land and have been tilling another acre on rent; besides they own one cow. They mostly plant wheat during rabi season and vegetables in kharif and intermediate period. Caste wise they were from Kushwaha community that falls in other backward class (OBC) category. Their families are mostly dependent on government schemes for ration, education of children and healthcare. They live in a semi pucca house constructed five years ago with the help of government subsidy.

They have six bank accounts for their family members, mostly used to receive various benefits from the government and other institutions. They have 2-3 small pieces of gold ornaments each for all three women of the house; two bicycles for the men and one basic mobile phone. They collectively have less than twenty five thousand rupees in cash and bank deposits. They hire tractor for tilling their land; and they borrowed money from an MFI to buy a diesel pump for watering their crops.

The most striking part of the discussion was the effort made by these farmers to convince me that they are not “poor” people. They repeatedly alluded that they are amongst the better off families in their community in the village. Obviously their concept of poverty is very different from what is commonly understood by academicians, economists, analysts and policy makers.

Ompal, elder of the brother, mostly defined poverty philosophically. He believes that anyone who does not take what belongs to others and does not beg cannot be termed as poor. Shivpal, the younger brothers, adding a materialistic dimension, said that they have a roof on their heads, their children never go to sleep hungry, and they are able to take care of their elders – how could they be termed poor. Insofar as availing the benefits of the government schemes meant for the poor is concerned; both appeared convinced that being citizens of this country it is their right to enjoy these benefits. "The government does not oblige us by giving 5kg of cereals and basic education to our kids”, Ompal said, rejecting any suggestion of living on government alms.

To give this discussion a context, the policy makers and agencies use a variety of definitions to identify the poor that need to be helped. The Suresh Tendulkar Committee (2009) pegged the poverty level at consumption per person per day at Rs29 in urban areas and Rs22 in rural areas. Rangrajan Committee (2014) revised the limits higher to Rs1407/person month in urban areas and Rs972/person month in rural areas. This criteria is primarily based on the recommended nutritional requirements of 2,400 calories per person per day for rural areas and 2,100 calories for urban areas.

NITI Aayog uses multidimensional definition of poverty which considers health, education, and standard of living. As per NITI Aayog about 25% of the Indian population is poor. The World Bank counts poverty by measuring headcounts living below US$6.85/day in 2017 purchasing power parity (PPP). By this definition it is estimated that ~84% of the population in India lives in poverty.

Even if we ignore the data presented by private agencies like Oxfam, due to the allegations of political bias, there is no doubt that there exists massive inequality in terms of income, wealth, access to good education & healthcare and growth opportunities in India. For example, as per the latest NITI Aayog data, in Bihar 52% of the state’s population is poor; while Tamil Nadu has just 5% of its population below poverty line. MP has 37% of its population living below the poverty line. In fact the most populated four states – Bihar, UP and MP have the largest number of poor living in poverty.

What I concluded from my discussion with the farmer brothers is as follows:

1.    Given the level of poverty, number of poor, and massive inequalities, India should ideally have a strong Communist movement. However, to the contrary, the communist movement has either got constricted to some elite educational institutions or has degenerated into an exploitative and violent Naxal movement in some pockets of central India. Most socialist parties have degenerated into feudal fiefdoms of the leaders.

2.    The political system in India does not conform to any popular classification, i.e., socialist, communist, capitalist, monarchy, autocracy etc. We have a unique political system that incorporates some characteristics of socialism, capitalism, feudalism and monarchy. The elected leaders are considered Kings, and the public treasury is considered their personal wealth. They are thanked for cleaning drains, repairing roads and running schools.

3.    Awareness about good life, constitutional rights and disguised exploitation amongst people is very low.

I shall be travelling extensively through the country for next one year; would be glad to share more such anecdotes and learnings. Readers’ views and opinions are welcome.

Last week, the National Statistical Office (NSO) released first advance estimates of the National Income for FY23. These estimates are important because the budget estimates for FY24 would be based on these estimates. The finance ministry will use these estimates to project the GDP, savings, tax revenue, expenditure and allocations for various sectors of the economy.

Some key highlights of the data released by NSO could be listed as follows:

FY23 real growth (2011-12 prices)

• GDP (at 2011-12 prices) may increase by 7% to against 8.7% in FY22. This estimate is marginally higher than the RBI’s latest estimate of 6.8%.
• Per capita GDP may increase by 5.8% to Rs1,13,967, in FY23, against a growth of 7.6% in FY22.
• Per capita private consumption may be Rs65,237, a growth of 6.6% over FY22.
• FY23 Nominal Growth (current prices)
• GDP may increase by 15.4% to US$3.3trn, against 19.5% growth in FY22.
• Per capita GDP may grow by 14.2% to Rs1,97,468 (US$2394), against a growth of 18.4% in FY22.
• Per capita private consumption may grow by 15.1% to Rs1,18,580 (US$1437) in FY23, against a growth of 16% in FY22

FY23 Sectoral growth (2011-12 prices)

• Agriculture growth may accelerate to 3.5% (FY22 – 3%)
• Manufacturing growth may collapse to 1.6% (FY22 – 9.9%)
• Mining growth to collapse to 2.4% (FY22 – 11.5%)
• Construction growth to slow down to 9.1% (FY22 – 11.5%)
• Public administration and Defence expenditure growth to slow down to 7.9% (FY22 – 12.6%)
• Electricity, gas, water and other utility services growth accelerate to 9% (FY22 – 7.5%)
• Trade, hotel, transport, communication etc. to grow faster at 13.7% (FY22 – 11.1%)
• Financial services, professional services and real estate to grow by 6.4% (FY 22 – 4.2%)

FY23 Production growth

·         Rice, cement, Oil & gas, steel, telephone subscriber, cargo at ports, air passengers, railways, exports, mining, manufactured products etc. may witness material slow down in growth.

·         Commercial vehicles, passenger vehicles, bank credit may witness higher yoy growth as compared to FY22.

Key observations

• The estimates are based on the data available till November 2022 and may go under significant revision when the first revised estimate for the full year will be released in May 2023. These estimates seem to assume sharp recovery in manufacturing and some slowdown in services in 2HFY23. However, it appears unlikely that the industrial growth will accelerate enough in 2HFY23 to achieve 4.5% real GDP growth in 2HFY23. The lagged impact of higher rates, tighter liquidity and slower global demand (exports) may actually be more pronounced in 2HFY23.
• These estimates may however allow the government to project buoyant tax revenue in FY24, and accordingly provide for higher government spending and improved fiscal position in the union budget to be presented on 1^st February.
• The NSO has projected a trade deficit of 4.6% of GDP for full year FY23 up from 2.5% in FY22. This is worrisome, as the exports are likely to slow down further in 2023 as the world struggles to avoid recession.
• Real per capita private consumption expenditure of Rs65,237 read with huge income inequality indicators, is inadequate to support self-reliance of citizens and higher growth. The pressure on the government to provide basic necessities like food, housing, education, healthcare etc. will only increase going forward. This will (i) constrict investment; (ii) hinder development of quality human resources; and (iii) lead to even more socio-economic inequalities.
• The good part is that buoyant growth may save the finance minister from making the unpleasant decision of hiking taxes.

 The latest edition of the World Economic Forum’s global risk report (The Global Risk Report 2022) offers some valuable and interesting insights into the current global risk perceptions and areas of concern. The key message is that “A divergent economic recovery from the crisis created by the pandemic risks deepening global divisions at a time when societies and the international community urgently need to collaborate to check COVID-19, heal its scars and address compounding global risks.”

The clear and present global challenges include “Supply chain disruptions, inflation, debt, labour market gaps, protectionism and educational disparities are moving the world economy into choppy waters that both rapidly and slowly recovering countries alike will need to navigate to restore social cohesion, boost employment and thrive. These difficulties are impeding the visibility of emerging challenges, which include climate transition disorder, increased cyber vulnerabilities, greater barriers to international mobility, and crowding and competition in space”. To meet these challenges, the world needs trust and cooperation within and between countries, lest the world shall continue to drift apart.

Risk Perception of global managers

Results of the Global Risks Perception Survey, that underpins the report, highlight the following key sentiment indicators:

·         Most respondents see social risks in the form of “social cohesion erosion”, “livelihood crises” and “mental health deterioration” continue to worsen.

·         Frighteningly, “only 16% of respondents feel positive and optimistic about the outlook for the world, and just 11% believe the global recovery will accelerate. Most respondents instead expect the next three years to be characterized by either consistent volatility and multiple surprises or fractured trajectories that will separate relative winners and losers.”

·         The societal and environmental risks are seen as the most concerning for the next five years.

·         However, over a wider horizon of next 10 years, health of the planet dominates concerns;  with “climate action failure”, “extreme weather”, and “biodiversity loss” ranking as the top three most severe risks. “Debt crises” and “geoeconomic confrontations” are seen as among the most severe risks over next 10 years.

·         Technological risks—such as “digital inequality” and “cybersecurity failure”—are seen as the other critical short- and medium-term threats to the world.

·         About the present risk mitigation methods and techniques, the global risk managers believe that “the current state of risk mitigation efforts fall short of the challenge in areas like “Artificial intelligence”, “space exploitation”, “cross-border cyber-attacks and misinformation” and “migration and refugees”. The present risk mitigation efforts are seen as effective in facing the established risks such as “trade facilitation”, “international crime” and “weapons of mass destruction”.

Climate Action Failure – top most long term risk

The failure in addressing the climate concerns is perceived as “the number one long-term threat to the world and the risk with potentially the most severe impacts over the next decade. It is highlighted that the “Climate change is already manifesting rapidly in the form of droughts, fires, floods, resource scarcity and species loss, among other impacts. In 2020, multiple cities around the world experienced extreme temperatures not seen for years—such as a record high of 42.7°C in Madrid and a 72-year low of -19°C in Dallas, and regions like the Arctic Circle have averaged summer temperatures 10°C higher than in prior years.

It is evident that “Governments, businesses and societies are facing increasing pressure to thwart the worst consequences. Yet a disorderly climate transition characterized by divergent trajectories worldwide and across sectors will further drive apart countries and bifurcate societies, creating barriers to cooperation.”

Cyberthreats emerging as prominent risk

As per the Report, “in 2020, malware and ransomware attacks increased by 358% and 435% respectively—and are outpacing societies’ ability to effectively prevent or respond to them. Lower barriers to entry for Cyberthreats actors, more aggressive attack methods, a dearth of cybersecurity professionals and patchwork governance mechanisms are all aggravating the risk.”

It is anticipated that “attacks on large and strategic systems will carry cascading physical consequences across societies, while prevention will inevitably entail higher costs. Intangible risks—such as disinformation, fraud and lack of digital safety—will also impact public trust in digital systems. Greater cyberthreats will also hamper cooperation between states if governments continue to follow unilateral paths to control risks. As attacks become more severe and broadly impactful, already-sharp tensions between governments impacted by cybercrime and governments complicit in their commission will rise as cybersecurity becomes another wedge for divergence—rather than cooperation—among nation-states.”

“Involuntary migration” poses a potent risk

Economic hardships, climate change and political instability in many countries is forcing a lot of people to migrate to safer places involuntarily. At the same time, effects of pandemic and other factors are resulting in increased economic protectionism and restrictive labor markets, creating higher barriers to entry for migrants. “These higher barriers to migration, and their spill-over effect on remittances—a critical lifeline for some developing countries—risk precluding a potential pathway to restoring livelihoods, maintaining political stability and closing income and labour gaps.”

In the most extreme cases, humanitarian crises will worsen since vulnerable groups have no choice but to embark on more dangerous journeys.

It is noteworthy that “the United States faced over 11 million unfilled jobs in general and the European Union had a deficit of 400,000 drivers just in the trucking industry.”

Space could be new war zone

The report mentions that ‘New commercial satellite market entrants are disrupting incumbents’ traditional influence over the global space commons in delivering satellite services, notably internet-related communications. A greater number and range of actors operating in space could generate frictions if space exploration and exploitation are not responsibly managed. With limited and outdated global governance in place to regulate space alongside diverging national-level policies, risks are intensifying.”

“One consequence of accelerated space activity is a higher risk of collisions that could lead to a proliferation of space debris and impact the orbits that host infrastructure for key systems on Earth, damage valuable space equipment or spark international tensions.”