From Financial Express, September 13, 2013

Getting India back on track

 In my last column (An Indian Spring? FE, August 22, http://goo.gl/hwW9cw), I raised the possibility of India descending into an Egypt-like situation. It probably will not get that bad, since India’s recent history and its societal makeup are sufficiently different. But there is one large commonality—a surplus of young people relative to decent jobs. That basic mismatch between demographics and economic opportunity can drive substantial waves of social unrest. One only has to think back to the early and mid-1970s to realise that India, for all its democratic resilience, is not immune to severe social and political instability. In an earlier column (Can India grow faster again? FE, August 19, http://goo.gl/8E9iwS) I listed some steps that India’s leaders need to take in the medium run: effective vocational training, removing constraints on electric power generation, and more devolution to the states and to cities. But before that, there is a short run crisis facing the country. Here are my thoughts on how to turn things around quickly and effectively. 

The immediate problem is a crisis of confidence. This is partly what has driven the plunge in the rupee, although the strength of the US and European economies has also contributed to the rupee depreciation. The erosion of confidence has been gradual, with multiple instances of government corruption and fiscal and monetary policy mistakes over the last couple of years. Fixing this will not be easy. The measures undertaken so far have smacked of panic: sudden promises of relaxing foreign direct investment caps, a grab bag of import controls, and derailing financial markets to curb “speculators”. All these measures, in my view, simply reaffirm the view that the government is adrift and that troubles will continue. The latter two types of measures also go against the basics of a coherent economic reform strategy, which should be built on promoting well-functioning markets in a global setting. 

With respect to the rupee, the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) initial response of trying to reduce speculation by making short-term borrowing harder simply sabotaged the working of short-term credit markets, and had no effect on offshore traders. Markets became thinner and more volatile. Instead, if RBI wants to prevent further overshooting downwards of the rupee’s value, it should follow an assertive and transparent (but feasible) intervention policy (something along the lines suggested by Kaushik Basu, announcing a schedule of intervention). Given what has happened, it may be mostly too late. One thing RBI should do is to raise its policy rate, as other emerging economies have been doing. Yes, this could further slow down growth, but the short run benefits of an interest rate hike, in terms of stabilising expectations about inflation and currency depreciation, seem to make this a worthwhile option. Reversing such rate hikes is easy and quick, and they do not have the deleterious impacts of unexpected changes in the rules governing the functioning of markets. 

With respect to the current account deficit, what the government needs to do is to use the opportunity of the rupee depreciation to push exports. The obvious areas are in information technology and related services, tourism, and possibly some kinds of consumer goods (including apparel, health and beauty items, and processed foods). Essentially, India’s products are suddenly a bargain, but some rapid and concerted marketing efforts are required to make sure that rich world consumers take advantage of these bargains. India’s embassies and missions abroad should be going into overtime, working with Indian businesses to seize the opportunity presented by the fallen rupee. Promoting exports, while more work and slower to take effect than restricting imports, will have a much larger medium term benefit. One of the easiest, most immediate opportunities is promoting foreign tourism, since the supply constraints are less problematic. 

On the domestic front, the politics of the looming national election make progress difficult, but if the government were to push harder to reach a grand bargain on the goods and services tax (GST), convincing the array of opposition parties that they will all benefit from a broader, more robust tax system, this would provide the prospect of a corrective on the fiscal front. My reading of some of the crisis of confidence is that it was driven by the government’s attempts to raise revenue through ad hoc, discretionary and retroactive measures, in turn driven by the need to reduce the fiscal deficit. But those policies hurt confidence, growth and government revenues, just the opposite of what was desired. 

The three examples I have suggested are policies that signal that the government is in charge, and is capable of providing leadership to the country. In contrast, most of the governmental responses to the crisis so far have seemed to signal desperation, weakness and lack of control. Much of the recent Indian policy debate has been reduced to finger pointing (evil speculators, heartless global capitalists, incompetent and venal politicians) and crying over spilt milk. It does not have to be so, and India’s leadership has to act as if it is worthy to lead in these challenging times.

Financial Express, February 27, 2013

Current account deficit worries

 In recent weeks, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, Duvvuri Subbarao, has twice highlighted the nation’s current account deficit (CAD) as a cause for concern. The CAD is basically the difference between what is earned on selling goods and services to foreigners and what India pays for foreign goods and services, and it has recently hit record levels—over 5% of GDP. The CAD is typically offset by foreign capital coming into India. Why should a high CAD be a cause for worry? 

The RBI Governor highlighted several concerns. At the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting, he said, “There are a number of risk factors for inflation. The most important is the current account deficit.” A few days earlier, he had stated, “We would not worry if the widening CAD is on account of the import of capital goods, but here it is high on account of the import of oil and gold. The other concern is the way we are financing it. We are financing our CAD through increasingly volatile flows. Instead, we should ideally be getting as much of FDI as possible to finance the CAD.”

What is the possible reasoning behind the Governor’s statements? It is useful to begin with some basic accounting. Macroeconomic balances imply that the CAD is equal to the difference between domestic savings and investment plus the government deficit. Hence, an increasing CAD can reflect a higher fiscal deficit, an increasing shortfall of domestic savings, or both. In India’s case, it has been both. Domestic private savings have fallen as a percentage of GDP, and the fiscal deficit has gone up. It is important to realise that the CAD is a symptom of more basic factors that deserve attention. A high CAD is not bad in itself: it just signals possible underlying problems.

The problems are poorly managed government spending and taxes, high inflation (and high inflation expectations), and a strong perception that government policies are unfavourable for future growth. The last is based on policy inaction as well as evidence of corruption. These problems deserve focus, not the CAD per se.

Turning to the RBI Governor’s statements, why should the CAD be a risk factor for inflation? If the economy were overheating, and pulling in foreign investment for that reason, this statement might make sense—again, the CAD would be a symptom not a cause. But that does not seem to be the problem, unless India’s potential growth rate has fallen more than policymakers admit. If foreigners were unwilling to finance the CAD, and the Indian rupee had to depreciate, pushing up the domestic price of inelastic imports such as oil, that could fuel inflation in the short run (though not in the long run, unless the RBI made a monetary accommodation). But interestingly, after a temporary pause, foreign investment into India has been strong.

Subbarao’s second point was that foreign investment is of the wrong kind, “volatile” portfolio flows instead of FDI. A related concern was that the CAD itself is of poor quality—fuelled by imports of gold and oil rather than capital goods. This leads back to poor inflation management (people are buying gold as an inflation hedge) and poor economic management (lack of an effective energy policy and lack of confidence for private industrial investment in India). His main point, though, seemed to be that portfolio flows are volatile and therefore bad.

To the extent that portfolio flows bring in foreign capital, they are as good as FDI—domestic firms receiving foreign portfolio flows may be encouraged or enabled to make real investments themselves. If this link is absent, it points again to poor domestic economic conditions. Foreign portfolio flows could be contributing to an asset bubble, but volatility seems to be a red herring. My ongoing research with Ila Patnaik and Ajay Shah suggests that such flows do not create wild swings in the domestic stock market, or harm domestic investors at the expense of foreigners. Separately, I have not seen concrete evidence that domestic stock market movements have much impact on India’s real economy.

In fact, any kind of equity investment involves risk sharing, and in that sense it is good for the recipient. At worst, foreigners exit and the currency depreciates: India can still pay its bills. Problems arise much more if the CAD is financed by borrowing on terms fixed in foreign currency, especially at short maturities—that can create a crisis. The real issue, therefore, is what is happening to India’s external debt stock, and its maturity composition. This is where RBI should be focusing, in addition to domestic monetary policy. Unnecessarily worrying about volatility of portfolio flows (or of the exchange rate) is just a distraction. Meanwhile, the biggest problems lie beyond RBI’s control: in the government’s management of revenue raising, spending, and the conditions for private sector investment. FDI is good, but so is domestic investment. The national government needs to do its job better. If it does, the CAD will take care of itself.

Thoughts on the G-20 and the BRICs

Reflections last year on the role of the BRIC countries

Bric-à-Brac or More?

The second Bric summit is just under way at the time of this writing. The grouping was the inspired creation of Jim O’Neill, Goldman Sachs’ chief economist, almost a decade ago. Economic size and growth potential were the main criteria for the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Other dimensions of size—area and population—correlate as well. Three of the four have nuclear weapons capabilities and the same three are also strategic powers by virtue of size and geography.

more...

Thoughts on the decline of Europe, prompted by Greece's mess

Greece, the G-20 and India

Greece’s fiscal problems have had ripple effects across Europe, bringing back memories of the autumn of 2008, when a global financial meltdown seemed imminent. At that time, countries such as Hungary and Latvia were the poster children for profligacy and bad risk management. Greece was hiding its fiscal woes at the time, apparently by using currency swaps sold by Goldman Sachs. Now its budget deficit is revealed to exceed 13%, and financial concerns have spread to Portugal, Spain and Italy.

Unlike the 2008 problem countries of Eastern Europe, the new fiscal bad boys are all members of the euro zone. This raises the stakes enormously, since they do not have independent currencies that can depreciate, and their pain becomes the entire euro zone’s problem. How did this come about, and what can be done?


more...

Two more recent pieces on the G-20 and global rebalancing

What the G-20 Should Do

The upcoming G20 summit takes place at a pivotal moment. The halo of the G20’s response to the financial crisis in 2009 has faded, and it is receiving a lot of flak for not getting things done. In my last column (November 1), I argued that the G20 has an important potential role to play as a manager of current and emerging global risks, including those of climate change as well as financial volatility. For the moment, though, the focus is on global imbalances—the large current account surpluses and deficits that major members of the G20 are running. These imbalances were less of an issue (though still a concern) when the world economy was growing rapidly, and the US, in particular, was booming. The change in US circumstances is therefore a major cause of the new frictions.

more...

A Guide to Global Rebalancing

The financial crisis rejuvenated the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the G20, giving each new roles to play in managing the economic mess. New rules for financial regulation and new financial safety nets to promote stability are being developed. Presumably, when the world economy next looks like it is falling off a cliff, the response will be strong and coordinated. It is harder to get agreement on non-crisis tasks. There is some consensus that large current account imbalances (mirrored by large international capital flows) prolonged the run-up to the crisis and made it worse when it hit. In any case, large imbalances are not indefinitely sustainable, because they lead to unsustainable debt positions for borrowers and tricky portfolio decisions for lending countries.

more...