governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘East Asia’

PM Modi’s Foreign Policy “Trilema”

Trilema

(photo credit: http://www.financialexpress.com)

Reposted from Asian Age May 15, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/modi-s-trilemma-1

India’s bland foreign policy has traditionally been based on the principle of “please all and offend none”. Things changed under Indira Gandhi when we pivoted to the Soviets and teamed up against the “capitalists” in the West. But post-1990, once the Soviet dream evaporated, we reverted to the “offend none” tactic. The UPA years were a continuation of this approach, which suited the soft-spoken, nominal Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Things have changed since then. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a muscular, energetic man and wants his foreign policy to reflect that energy and purpose. But he faces the classic problem of managing an “impossible trinity” comprising the US, a weakening Russia and an emerging China, which today attracts allegiance from countries cutting across traditional power blocs.

East Asia, other than Vietnam and Australia, feeds off China’s economic growth. China will likely add $6 trillion of new wealth (GDP increase over 2015) in the period 2015-24 and this is a powerful magnet that dulls the pain of negotiating with China over “disputed territory” in the South and East China Sea.

Similarly, Sub-Saharan Africa increasingly depends on Chinese investment “aid” and mineral export to China. Even Russia prefers to diversify its energy exports away from Europe to China, but not to India or Japan.

China is an immediate neighbour of India. A dispute over border demarcation in the west and east lingers. Neither party is really willing to resolve it because it is convenient for both.

For China, the ongoing border dispute presents it with the opportunity to build roads through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), linking into Karachi on the Arabian Sea and the still-to-be-built Chinese port of Gwadar in Balochistan province, next to the Iranian border.

For India, the border dispute and China’s dodgy moves to build infrastructure through PoK, with the concurrence of Pakistan, is a package problem. It serves to legitimise a tit-for-tat aggressive development of Arunachal Pradesh, a border territory claimed by China. The area has significant hydro potential estimated at around 30 GW and is of strategic importance to safeguard the north-eastern states of India to its south.

It is fashionable to couch India’s need for China in commercial terms — trade and investment. But China is a much more efficient manufacturer than India and hence a trade deficit ($40 billion doubling to $80 billion in three years) is inevitable, with India as the junior exporting partner. Seeking investment from China is one way of plugging the hole created by the trade deficit. But such investment benefits China as much as India.

India’s growth story, whilst not as impressive as China’s, is sufficiently dramatic in these economically hollow times to garner eyeballs. New value creation (cumulative value addition to GDP over 2014 levels) of $1.4 trillion over a decade from now is not a trifle. A share of just 20 per cent (similar to its share today) in India’s new value creation could feed an annual growth of 0.3 per cent for China.

Growing economic ties with India — soon to be the fourth largest economy in the world (after the US, China and Japan) — enhance China’s “strategic prestige”. This is the “pull” factor. There is also a “push factor” which Indian strategists tend to emphasise — China’s paranoia that India may become part of a US effort to encircle China along with Japan. This “fear factor” is over hyped.

China knows well that the Indian psyche favours reconciliation rather than confrontation. India routinely prefers turning a Nelson’s eye to occasional intransigence but abhors subjugating its sovereignty to any foreign influence — a hangover of our colonial mindset. India could never be a link in an American chain to “contain” China.

China is unconcerned about future competition from the US. Over the next 30 years, the US will morph demographically into being dominated by fast-growing Hispanic and African-American communities; an ageing, minority white population; the inherited disadvantage of high wages and even higher citizen expectations; degrading infrastructure and increasing inequality. What this will mean for the “can do” spirit and mojo which defines the US, is unclear.

Despite such uncertainties, the US remains a long-term natural ally of India. Its plural culture, democratic values, federal institutional arrangements, history of innovation and grounded belief in religion and “family first” gels well with India.

A weakening US and a strengthening India make a perfect combination. The combined GDP of the US, India and Japan will be double of China’s GDP in 2024 and their future value addition — a key “convening” factor for attracting allies — will be higher than that of China.

Finally, the significant Indian community and private sector investment in the US and Europe provide a ready base for developing P2P (people to people) and B2B (business to business) contacts.

All this is reflected in the determined efforts of Mr Modi to establish a trade, investment and communication bridgehead with the US, Japan, Germany and Australia.

The traditional third leg of the impossible trinity has been Russia. But the gains from trade or strategic alignment are scarce. A close strategic friendship with Russia elicits no apprehension in Beijing because Russia is today a “toothless bear” plagued by a natural resource-export dependent economy. Russia, ruled by “grasping” oligarchs, has to reform and shed its macho image. Its best bet is to integrate into Europe, where it belongs. Consequently the “real” third leg of the trinity in future is Europe, with Germany and Russia as possible focal points.

Mr Modi’s strategy to navigate the impossible trinity of US, China and Europe-Russia is clear. Engage with the US, Japan and Germany aggressively and integrate into their value chains. Keep expectations low but exchange lofty targets with the Chinese and the Russians. But, most importantly, keep your powder dry and gear up India’s economy, because our best friend is our own strength and resilience.

Prime Minister Modi says Ni Hou

Ni Hou

(photo credit: india.com)

Arun Shourie- minister in the earlier NDA government and senior BJP leader was being strategically alarmist when he went public on May 1 warning Prime Minister Modi against succumbing to the seductive spell, which the Chinese put on Pandit Nehru (India’s first Prime Minister) eagerly accepting his diplomatic largesse and support whilst remaining firm on giving nothing in return, which was not expressly bargained for and agreed.

Mr. Shourie has a flair for the dramatic and an uncanny ability to be evocative in his speech, sweetly hitting hardest, where it hurts the most. The Chinese “betrayal” of Pandit Nehru’s “brotherly” love by invading India in 1962 broke Nehru’s heart and spirit. He succumbed to the body blow two years later. China supporters maintain that unclear messaging from India forced China to retaliate since it perceived India as being bent on unilaterally disturbing the status quo along an un-demarcated Himalayan border between the two countries. Be that as it may, the China-India 1962 war, in which, despite heroic, determined but futile resistance from an ill-equipped and poorly led Indian army, China soundly trounced India, has left an open wound for India, which is still raw more than five decades later.

One doesn’t need to go back to 1962 to be sure that China is not a natural ally for India. We are just too similar with few complementarities and hugely competing priorities.

India-China, twins separated at birth?

Both countries are in a race for fuel, which neither have and both need to grow their economies and feed their people. One out of every three humans is either Chinese or Indian. China is racing to achieve high income economy status (per capita GNI> US$ 12,746) whilst India is striving to be an upper middle income economy-where China is today (per capita GNI> US$ 4,125). Both need to find export markets to fuel their growth. Both are relative “outsiders” to the high table of developed countries and both are jostling for space. Both peoples are hugely entrepreneurial and compulsively competitive. But there the similarity ends.

Even twins grow differently

India is barely at the threshold of being a lower middle income economy but its international, political engagement is larger than its economic heft. China is already an upper middle income economy but traditionally prefers to remain below the international diplomacy radar and boxes well below its weight, except when it perceives its national interest directly at stake.

India is a democracy of long standing, grounded on the compulsion of complex heterogeneity and plurality. China is a largely homogenous, beneficent, authoritarian meritocracy.

India is has been institutionally and ideologically networked into the developed world due to its colonial heritage and the facility with English. But it is a recent and somewhat unwilling, entrant to the international trade and investment value chains. China’s culture and values are unique and somewhat autarkic but its planned tapping of developed country knowledge, innovation, research and technology market has worked well. Its pragmatism, easy adaptation to change and determined implementation of a growth strategy by integrating into trade and investment value chains, sets it apart from even its East Asian neighbours, most certainly India and previously communist countries.

Given the lack of complementarities and the visibly rivalrous character of the relationship why has Prime Minister Modi steadfastly wooed the Chinese?

Why China eyes India

China knows well what it wants from India. It wants to service India’s booming market with cost competitive goods and services. This is why a bilateral trade target of even US$ 100 billion per year is rather limited for China. Given a choice it would rather shoot for US$ 200 billion so that it can buy into India’s growth prospects for adding at least 1% to its GDP growth over the next few years.

Growth is flagging in China. This is worrisome for the leadership which has built its credibility by “filling people’s pockets to shut their mouths”- a snide reference to the grand political bargain in which Chinese citizens agree to trade in individual freedom for material gains.

India has a trade deficit of 50% of US$ 37 billion with China. Bilateral trade is US$70 billion.  This is higher than the aggregate trade deficit which is 20%. Further expansion of trade will likely worsen this deficit, since China is a more efficient mass producer of goods. Trade with China is consequently only a lever for India with which to negotiate alternative benefits in investment; security cooperation and mutually supportive diplomatic stances in multilateral fora.

So what is it about China which should excite India?

China made Indian Gods

Rather than predictably moan about the trade deficit with China Prime Minister Modi should praise the Chinese people for their achievements.

First, thank them for sending affordable goods to India thereby directly benefiting Indian consumers and forcing Indian industry to become competitive through attrition of uncompetitive businesses.

Second, thank China for being a role model for developing countries on the following three counts. (A) Illustrating the virtues of savings and investment led growth, particularly in manufacturing (B) Establishing the necessity of increasing public investment in human development and social protection (C)  Providing to the developing world a model for enhancing employment, jobs and rapid reduction in poverty

Third, invite them to visit India as Tourists, Students, Scholars and Friends so that our great cultures can learn from each other directly.

The gloved fist

Much has been made of the Chinese excursions into India even as President Xi was eating Dhoklas with Prime Minister Modi in September 2014.  Was this part of an elaborate Chinese plan to remind India that sipping green tea together does not mean China will give up its claims on Indian territory? Or were they a Peoples Liberation Army game plan to stab the reformist Xi in the back and undermine his international credibility? We may never find out. But what it does illustrate is that diplomacy is like sleeping with snakes-one has to sleep light, remain vigilant, move slowly but definitively and remain calm and unperturbed by the ensuing rattles.

Chinese cash

Should we fear Chinese investment in India? Clearly they have the cash and we have the need for it. One reason why we need the cash is to generate jobs. This means that the standard Chinese model of project implementation which relies on Chinese expatriates does not suit our needs. Rather they should build Indian skills in project implementation in keeping with their celebrated record in project implementation.

Partnership with Indian companies is the best model for Chinese investment in India so that social benefits and tax revenue flows downwards to the people of India whilst corporate profits flow to China. Other than a very short negative list of investments in sensitive border areas, Chinese investment should be welcomed. In fact co-partnership in international value chain related production can be of mutual benefit in services, engineering and chemicals.

End game

Prime Minister Modi’s China strategy must needs be minimalist. India looms too large in China’s neighbourhood for comfort. China will pull no punches in consciously trying to establish its dominance in South Asia and thereby cramp Indian influence. This is very similar to the effort India spends on cultivating Vietnam now and Taiwan earlier to the chagrin if China.

The best that India can hope to do is to stop China from playing “spoiler” in India’s unfolding growth story. Chinese support for Pakistani Terror or Maoist rebels in east India is an illustration of such proxy efforts. The best way of neutralizing “spoilers” is to co-opt them into the game as active participants. We must encourage China to develop significant investment stakes and trade links with India so that they too benefit from India’s growth. Actively encouraging highway and rail links across borders is a good place to start. India must aim to become “too big” in the Chinese investment portfolio for it to stall Indian growth- this is what “protects” the US.

It is inconceivable that Mr. Shourie is oblivious of this imperative to reach out to China. Could it be then be that his highly publicized “missive” to the PM was just a charade, dreamt up by the BJP “dirty tricks” department, to build up PM Modi as a strong and forceful leader with the reach; the credibility and the strategic depth to ignore inner-party, high level resistance to warming up China-India relations? In other words was Mr. Shourie’s advice given with the full knowledge that it would be ignored?

Similarly, could it be that the recent government action against Greenpeace and the Ford Foundation for crossing red lines by supporting activities against the national interest, were also initiated to project Mr. Modi’s government, ahead of the China visit, as being strongly nationalistic, able and willing to cock a snook at the US, just to illustrate, that India is not wedded to any traditional power block.

Far-fetched or not, PM Modi leaves for Beijing on a stronger wicket, as a friend of China, than he started with in September 2014, in part, thanks to Mr. Shourie.

Why Planning Died in India

thebetterindia

(www.thebetterindia.com)

So what will the post-Plan India look like?

Will we veer away from the soaring flyovers; highways straight as Arjun’s arrow; high rise apartments and carefully “zoned” areas, typical of planned development and turn instead towards the squiggly, irregular lines so dear to the foreign tourist, of “charming”, little, oriental streets; buildings leaning precariously into each other; roads not wide enough to turn around a decent sized car; gloomy, shaded rooms looking inwards onto resplendent, inner courtyards with shops, factories, homes, schools and hospitals all thrown higgledy-piggledy together in the best tradition of “organic growth” fueled by private money?

Unlikely, because even the most ancient, known, Indian city-Mohenjo Daro- built in the 25th century BC was based on a rectilinear street grid (now in Pakistan) and is completely at variance with the more recent, albeit charmingly romantic, memories of traditional Indian living.

If the ancient past was at variance with recent memories, the present is rapidly evolving.  Indian values and needs are changing in response to the open economy framework adopted since 1991 and the associated diffusion of technology, competition and choice. The change is so rapid that formal institutions have yet to catch up.

Neither our laws, nor our judiciary caters to the frustration of young Indians with the plethora of “limiting”, formal traditions.

Take for instance, the case of gays, lesbians and trans-genders. Our law demonises them. But most Indians are easy about adapting to them in the same way “hands-off” manner as they good naturedly, accept foreign customs, like opening doors for women ( a custom rapidly becoming extinct in the West); as a quaint sub text of life.

Cross religion marriages is another example. It is not the norm but is generally accepted if neither family objects. Young India takes to anything modern with a vengeance. Hafiz Contractor’s lurid architecture; skin fit jeans; soppy “friends” style TV serials; head banging, electronic music, offensively fast food and horribly over-priced lounges.

Aspirational India likes multilane highways, fast bikes, week-end car holidays, fourteen hour work days, nuclear families, steel and glass buildings, swanky airports; e-commerce and want rapid change, within their lifetime.

The rapid economic growth associated with these aspirations has usually been scaled up, to encompass the middle class, only by planned investments and heavily regulated economies, as in East Asia. The downside has been rapid grow in pockets of affluence; carefully screened off; insulated from the sordid reality of the poor. Planning to skillfully create a bubble of affluence, access into which is carefully monitored for those make the bubble real but who are excluded from the bubble, except as service providers.

But if Plans and Rules cater only to the rich does it really matter if we stop planning? Even if a random approach is adopted for public investment management there is a 50% chance that investments will benefit the rich and the poor equitably. In contrast, the Impact Assessment of Planned Programs for the poor does not have a better “hit rate” so who cares?

For starters, let us recognize that the death of Planning is not new. It died a quarter of a century ago when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

First, the planned share of private sector in investment has been increasing with every plan and was at 50% of total investment in the last Plan. So irrespective of how much money the government invests, so long as the private sector meets its targets we could hit at least 50% of the growth target so long as the government ensures a facilitating investment environment.

Second, public investment spend comprises just 21% of total public expenditure every year. The rest goes towards meeting the existing recurrent liabilities of interest (33%) salaries (8%) and other operating expenditure just to feed the public “beast”. Rather than increasing public investment by increasing taxes, far better to leave the surplus with private actors and encourage them to invest.

Third, of the 21% which is available for public investment there is no easy way of knowing how much needs to go for funding completion of ongoing projects and what then is the residual fiscal space for new projects. It is telling that even the Union Government budget documents are not transparent about this important distinction in resource allocation.

The suspicion is that if Fiscal Deficit targets are to be achieved there is very limited fiscal space for new projects. A careful inventory of approved but unfinanced projects could reveal a project stock as high as investment spending over the next five years. This is not new and explains why the practice has been to spend on new projects by starving existing ones, so as to please the largest number of political constituencies.

Remember that incomplete road outside your window which rakes up columns of dust every time a motorcycle zips by? Well the reason why the engineers, you curse daily, are taking so long to complete it, is that money for a road or any other project is not allocated and frozen at the time the project is approved. Allocations lapse at the end of the year and fresh allocations made against which cash is released piece meal, depending on the relative power of conflicting political constituencies.

Fourth, planning died because Planners did not reciprocate the faith put in them by citizens. They “gold plated” projects (Commonwealth Games); failed to anticipate technological change and innovation (Public Transportation) and thereby created huge stockpiles of inefficient and unsustainable assets, financed by public debt.

PM Modi probably knows this and consequently is no hurry to devise a new planning set up. Of course every government wants to leave its “footprint” encrusted in projects. The Modi government is no different, if one is to judge from the bouquet of projects hurriedly announced and allocated notional amounts in the 2014 post-election budget.

The only hope this time around, is that there may be more emphasis on creating a facilitating environment and encouraging the private sector to invest rather than using public funds to determine the future.

The test case will be Defence Production. If the government can get the domestic and foreign private sector to invest in “make in India”, against buy back assurances, we shall be starting on an even keel. Nothing much there for the poor to cheer, except some trickle down in construction and services, but at least the middle class can look forward to more jobs and better wages.

Indian Rabudom and Baniagiri

Is India a land of Banias or Rajas, Babus and bonded labourers (the latter collectively termed “Rabudom”)? The anglo-west is clearly a land of banias (service with a smile, anything to improve the bottom line, everyone tries to work) as is China and East Asia.  South Asia (including India) and Africa are still caught in the transition from Rabudom to “Baniagiri”. In essence the difference between the two is in the nature of capital accumulation.

Rabudom relies on an “extractive” model of depleting what already exists, like all of West Asia and much of Africa. Under Rabudom, ownership of physical resources is the key to wealth; land, real estate, mines, oil, forests, rivers, lakes, spectrum and in a unliberalised business environment, licenses to set up businesses (i call these legislated rents). Not surprising therefore that this model of wealth accumulation runs foul of the workers; the ordinary citizens who can see the use of law and muscle power to corner natural resources and “the legal right to do business” and hence resist the process. Baniagiri on the other hand is based on a more sustainable “value for money” and “going business” approach. Baniagiri considers both the input (resources) and the output(customer satisfaction) value propositions over the long term. In doing so, it focuses on the “use” of money to maximise profit. Rajadon seldom focuses on “how” money is used because more wealth is always there for the asking by just digging it out of the ground…..a parallel in agriculture is “jhoom” slash and burn cultivation where the underlying assumption is availability of sufficient land.

Baniagiri also requires the constant scanning for business entry points of “high value” accretion with low levels of competititon (like a bridge across a river or a port). These areas are too complex for Rabudom. Rabudom also fears to enter business areas which require the “transformation” of natural resources into value, like using bauxite to make Aluminum or using coal, rivers or solar radiation to generate power. These are natural preserves of Baniagiri. Baniagiri would also enter the natural resources game, if an entry point is available and the value proposition is good, but the key difference is, it does not rely solely on this method of vaue creation, unlike Rabudom.  We in India are still at the “little Raja” stage. It is illustrative that the concept of “seniority (a typical Rabudom concept) exists even amongst artists and actors.

Ofcourse given our population, there are millions of Indian farmers who are deep into Baniagiri and innovation; professionals who are international quality and traditional business communities who embody the essence of Baniagiri. Unfortunately, there are still too few of these to have a critical mass to induce significant change. It is only when the majority of our citizens start becoming Banias that we will reject waste; debunk false pride in social status and acquire the vision to deliver. This can only come from someone who has lived the talk. Maggie Thatcher brought the UK back to being what they had begun as, ” an island of shop keepers” and is still hated by many for doing so.  Who will deliver India?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: