governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Niti Aayog’

Will NITI get it’s hands dirty?

Rajiv-Kumar-NITI

Rajiv Kumar, the new vice-chairman of the Niti Aayog, has made development of an organic, Bharatiya model of development as his mission. He is likely to encounter three problems in this endeavour.

A new, local model of development is doomed from the start in a globalised world 

farmer 2

First, in a post-ideology world, marked by rapid technological transformations, economic models become outdated even before they can be tested. In these uncertain times, feeling the rocky river bed with one’s feet carefully, while crossing turbulent economic and social currents, seems the wisest option.

Second, isn’t this what Bharat has always done. We have been obsessive about the “uniqueness” of India, which seemingly requires all international experience to be adapted for use locally. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though it has its downsides.

Scaling up rapidly more important than localisation

school lunch

Consider that in the five decades after Independence we have stuck, like leeches, to the Nehruvian development model of ersatz socialism based on a massive industrial public sector accompanied by the outrageous neglect of agriculture, private enterprise or international quality education and health facilities. This, when most other emerging countries, in East Asia, Southeast Asia and Latin America, switched over to a modified Anglo-Saxon, neo-liberal strategy from the 1970s and reaped the benefits of rapid growth.

To be sure, even after 1991, the reform model we followed was Bharatiya. Its core ingredients were incremental rather than big-bang reform — a strategy Russia followed with disastrous results — and careful sequencing of sector reform to minimise the pain from reforms.

It is unclear, however, whether Bharatiya incrementalism helped the poor. Chancel and Picketty (July 2017) estimate that over the period 1980 to 2014 the share of growth accruing to the bottom 50 per cent of adults was 11 per cent in India; 13 per cent in China and only one per cent in the United States. Meanwhile, the top one per cent of adults garnered 29 per cent of the growth in India. China did better by containing the share of this segment at 15 per cent, while the US did worse at 34 per cent. More worryingly, the next nine per cent of adults, from the top, garnered 37 per cent of growth in India, significantly more than in China (29 per cent) and the US (32 per cent). Where we failed spectacularly was in protecting the middle 40 per cent of adults, who got only 23 per cent of the growth versus 43 per cent in China and 33 per cent in the US.

Be shrewd and businesslike not ideologically shortsighted

One Bharatiya innovation which succeeded spectacularly was the phased introduction of currency and capital convertibility. This modified-market approach was validated by India escaping the ill-effects of the 1997 East Asian currency crisis. It is significant that Malaysia followed our innovative approach, endorsed by Jagdish Bhagwati, by reimposing capital controls after 1997, and Iceland did similarly in 2008.

Similarly, our choice of shying away from “big bang” privatisation of the public sector, unlike Latin America in the 1980s and Eastern Europe in the 1990s, worked well. We chose instead to liberalise controls over private investment, thereby enabling private companies to grow and compete with the public sector. This strategy has paid dividends in civil aviation, telecom, minerals and electricity generation. Incremental private sector investment now dominates these sectors and a competitive market-based economy has emerged.

Simultaneously, we contained the social cost of reforms. But a similar policy has not worked in banking. We were too hesitant to give up the political power which comes with the government owning public sector banks. Private banks today account for just one-third of banking assets. The massive economic problem of stressed loan accounts, amounting to around 14 per cent of publicly owned bank assets, is a consequence of our not following through by liberalising the financial sector. Bharatiyata has, unfortunately, become synonymous with crony capitalism in banking.

Aping the turtle gives time to pull a reform coalition together

The GST is operational today due to a strategy of incrementalism, driven by the need for building inter-government consensus. Early indications are positive both on the increase in revenue collected and the enhanced compliance by taxpayers. But the jury is out till the final results come in by April 2018.

In a nutshell, Bharat’s economic policies have always been unique and contextual. Some observers would even say we obsessively reinvent the wheel. It will thus be a tall order for the Niti Aayog to evolve a new Bharatiya model of development, which is completely unknown to us, or the world.

Don’t fix what isn’t broken

Third, do we need a new model of development? The existing model has served us well. The areas for deeper reform are well known and agreed. Indeed, many are already on their way. Hopefully the 15th Finance Commission will continue the task of decentralising fiscal resources, by increasing the share of devolved resources from the 42 per cent existing today towards 50 per cent. This would push the Union government to be more selective in its interventions based on the time-tested principle of subsidiarity — not doing anything that can be efficiently done at a lower level of government. The government is already allocating more resources to agriculture, education and healthcare, which had fallen through the gaps earlier, while also stepping up allocations for defence and infrastructure.

Avoid the temptation to centralise functions – There is enough to do for all.

At the helicopter level of grand plans and policies, there is no gap which the Niti Aayog can address. In fact, it would do well to exercise forbearance in areas where individual ministries are better equipped to take the lead. Where Niti can add value is in addressing the root causes of poor implementation. Tony Blair’s Service Delivery Unit did this to marvellous effect in the UK. Malaysia and Tanzania thereafter copied the template.

Check the plumbing in government. Massive efficiency gains are low hanging fruit

dirty

Niti should focus on the nitty-gritty of getting the plethora of good intentions, embedded in policies, implemented on the ground. This goes beyond close monitoring of targets or punishing laggards. The devil lies in clogged delivery chains, poor metrics to measure results and misaligned incentives, all of which need to be painstakingly mapped and then innovatively declogged. It’s a plumber’s job that needs to be done. Is the Niti Aayog willing to get its hands dirty?

Adapted from the authors article in The Asian Age, September 7, 2017  http://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/070917/is-niti-aayog-willing-to-get-its-hands-dirty.html

 

NITI’s vision 2032 disappoints

NITI vision 2

NITI vision 2032 : foggy, disjointed & barely hanging together

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the chief ministers of states spent most of Sunday deliberating over the plans and prospects for India in the next 15 years to 2031-32. The third governing council meeting of the Niti Aayog seems to have been an underwhelming affair, judging from the two presentations put up on its website. Why this listless thinking?

Great expectations

Three years ago, when the dowdy Planning Commission was transformed into a glitzy Niti Aayog, expectations were high that it would be the loci of innovation and cutting-edge analytics in public policy. The Planning Commission was merely an extended office of the Prime Minister. Chief ministers, whilst supposedly integral to the National Development Council (NDC), which the commission serviced, felt like interlopers rather than participating members. The flamboyant J. Jayalalithaa used the NDC forum like a television station — walking in to deliver her speech and then walking out. Others stoically suffered the process, making debating points, that no one heard.

New beginnings

Some of that has changed. Mr Modi has done away with the elevated podium of yesteryear for the PM and Union ministers. Now all are seated at the same level around a round table. Another first — the meeting was held at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Symbolic, as our head of state is not the PM, but the President, with whom the Union and state governments have an independent constitutional equation. In deference to the beacon ban, the long line of official cars streaming into the venue were minus their flashing red lights, thereby letting the tricolour atop Rashtrapati Bhavan take pride of place. On optics, the arrangements were perfect.

More optics than substance

The substance, however, seems not to have been as uplifting. Five examples will illustrate.

Lacks credibility

indian dream

A car for every household – is this the Indian dream?

First, a 15-year vision which is not nuanced enough to reconcile trade-offs lacks credibility. To aim to make India a prosperous economy by 2032 is a pie in the sky. India can, at best, and that too with enormous effort, go from being a lower middle-income country (per capita at current $1,600) to become a middle-income country (per capita current $4,800). A very long shot from being prosperous. The per capita income (at current US dollars) in Latin America and Caribbean today is $8,415, while in East Asia it’s at $9,512. There is no way we can catch up to even these levels by 2032. Consider also that the high growth rates required to make this jump could negatively impact equality. The international experience amply demonstrates that high levels of growth come with the risk of increasing inequality. There is not a whisper in the vision statement of how we propose to navigate the trade-off between growth and equality — the latter being part of the PM’s vision.

More of the same

brick stacks

Second, the Niti Aayog’s vision statement is backward looking. It ignores the dislocation caused by technological developments which technology leaders like the Chinese entrepreneur, Jack Ma have been warning against. NITI aims to make India a highly-educated country by 2032. Should we not be looking, instead, at becoming highly skilled? We are already battling progressive robotisation. By 2032, artificial intelligence would have squeezed jobs further in traditional sectors. New jobs, 10 million a year, which we require and still don’t have, are only likely in highly specialised areas — like space travel, frictionless transportation and psychological counselling — niches which are not easy to robotise, rather than general education which we value today. By 2032, just as plumbers, carpenters, masons and welders would be obsolete so would equity traders, bank clerks, low-level lawyers and IT workers. We will still need pure scientists, social scientists and engineers, but in limited numbers, We already produce 2 million of these every year. But very few are of cutting edge quality. Our challenge is to develop innovative minds with appropriate skills, not to educate 400 million of our under 18 years population to become “thinkers” – the bulk of the thinking will soon be done by machines. Humans will need the skills required to choose and make wise decisions, intermediate between humans machines and train other humans to work with machines. No sign of this transformation in the vision.

Not joined up – conflicting objectives

oil pollution

Third, the vision statement wishes India to become “energy abundant”. But being energy abundant is a retrograde desire tinged with the potential for waste. Energy abundance means energy prices tumbling, spurring even more per capita consumption of energy. Surely this is incompatible with the other objective of being “environmentally clean”? Are we really aiming to provide a car or a motorbike to each household, as the vision proclaims, or do we wish to make public transport the most convenient option? Should we not be allocating funds to become energy efficient rather than spending on acquiring or developing more energy resources? The hunger for energy abundance is a stale ambition.

Mushy & emotional, not pragmatic

Fourth, the Niti Aayog aims to make us a “globally influential nation”. How is one to go about this Dale Carnegie-type revamp? India has thumped the tables of the United Nations for over five decades. And yet, suddenly today, we are more influential globally than ever before because of our large, growing markets, relatively easy access for foreign capital and technology, facilitating internal institutional arrangements and stable polity. Influence is an outcome of domestic capacity, confidence and conviction. These 3C’s are the drivers we should be looking at. Best, like Arjun, to aim for the eye of the bird and not get distracted by the clouds floating around.

Process matters for cooperative federalism

Fifth, the Niti Aayog was constituted to showcase cooperative federalism and be the entry door for its implementation. But it remains poorly organised for living by this principle. Its staff should be deputed both by the Union government and directly by the state governments, much like multilateral entities operate. It must have a permanent secretary-level board to review and clear documents to be presented to the governing council, and provide a forum for discussion and implicit negotiations between officers from the Union and the states deputed to the Aayog. The governing council should structure meetings to provide for negotiations at the political level to evoke the spirit of cooperation and collaboration. Currently, the council functions more as a receptacle for the views of state governments and offers an opportunity for the Union government to tell states what it is doing, just like the Planning Commission used to do.

Put some flesh on the vision

famine

The vision unveiled, yesterday, is muddied by a vast array of disjointed initiatives, thereby reducing the clarity of purpose expected from such a document. Words matter and must be used selectively and deliberatively. Otherwise a vision is nothing but a laundry list of wishes. For years the World Bank “dreamt” about a world free of poverty. It now recognises that wishes need to disciplined to the takable actions to convert wishes to reality.

The public expects much, much more than old wine in new bottles from Mr Modi- especially over the next decade. He and the outstanding talent in the Aayog, must allocate time for thoughtful negotiations at multiple levels. There is no other way to make others — particularly the state governments — feel like valued members of the same Team India!

Adapted from the authors article in The Asian Age  April 25, 2017 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/oped/250417/niti-aayogs-vision-2032-disappoints.html

PM NITI 3 GC

 

Plough deep for reform results

plough

Deep ploughing is necessary for reform results. Photo credit: hardrainproject.com

The government is stacking up its “reform credentials”. The long elusive Goods and Services Tax is now part of the constitutional scheme for taxes. This has been followed up with a double-punch by putting to rest the colonial tradition of a separate railway budget.

Bye bye separate rail budget

Rail budget reform was well received by the opposition, including the Congress and the Biju Janata Dal. In contrast Mr. Nitesh Kumar’s criticism that this will make the railways less autonomous appears to be reflexive dissent with an eye to the potential media coverage. Didi’s Trinamool Congress was similarly truculent. But Mr. Dinesh Trivedi, a previous minister of railways from the TMC, dulled the edge of the attack by not opposing the move.

The net budget support for the railways is just Rs 5,000 crore or one quarter of one percent of the annual budget. But having to get its budget passed, independently by parliament – a colonial tradition when the railways were a major public asset – exposes the railway minister to the inevitable “populist” demands to steer the budget through. This additional burden will now be borne by the finance minister – the redoubtable Mr. Arun Jaitley – whose reform credentials are growing by the day.

There is some concern that the granular information in the railways budget may no longer be available. But the concern is misplaced. The railways are reportedly implementing commercial accounting standards. Mr. Suresh Prabhu – the energetic minister for railways – could consider tabling an advance supplement based on the results for the first three quarters of the fiscal year- April to December, with the Budget documents for next fiscal followed up by yearly outcomes in the annual report tabled in parliament.

But let’s not kid ourselves. Well begun is only half done. Process reform, like the new rail budget mechanism, whilst necessary, is low hanging fruit. To show results process reform has to induce management and operational changes. In the age of “Big Data” access is not the constraint. It is using data to change behavior that matters.

1991 reforms had a narrow, central government focus

Some change in track is also necessary. Since 1991, the economic reforms have primarily focused on the sunrise sectors –  industry, commerce and finance. Tech grew under the governments radar because it remains export oriented. Inevitably urban boats have risen significantly. Two third of jobs are generated in cities, which explains the continuing in-migration from rural areas.

But connectivity and business as key drivers of growth blur the urban rural divide. Business is more concerned about seamless supply chain networks as the critical cartographic feature, not administrative borders. Similarly, markets do not end at the city limits, particularly if mass e-tailing is to grow.

SMART cities and dumb villages; broken supply chains.

We cannot hope that cities will be the sole engine of growth. There were nearly 19,000 villages, with a population of more than 5000 persons each and nearly 4000 villages, each with more than 10,000 persons, in 2001. Merely reclassifying these villages as urban spaces could increase the statistical level of urbanization from 31 to 50 percent of the total population. Estimates of the share of urban population in 2030 would then increase to 70 percent. But even the remaining 30% would constitute 450 million people left behind in villages. A significant market and a sizable vote bank.

The government has been diligent in rolling out new schemes to pull rural dwellers out of poverty. Financial inclusion via the Jan Dhan Yojna; economic and social security via subsidized insurance policies and the focus on public health and publicly financed housing are all positive moves. But most of these initiatives are still at the process reform stage. Tangible results – more disposable money in the hands of the poor – is still some time off. It is unclear, for example how many of the 200 million bank accounts opened under JAM are operational on a substantive manner. Enlarging the direct benefits transfer will make financial inclusion real. But last mile implementation is a slow process.

Unleash a reforms Tsunami to lift “rural boats” as well

rural-boat

Rural India : Seemingly placid but very uncertain.

Glimmers of hope persist. The Arvind Subramanian Report on price support for Pulses is a signal that government is shifting attention from urban centric reform areas, where progress is ongoing, to the neglected but high potential value addition sectors – agriculture, rural development and water. Agriculture needs to be brought out of the shadows where it has been consigned since the Green Revolution in the 1970s.

Visibility in rural and local governance is the first step

people-baiga

Baiga women at a meeting – listening passively to top down wisdom.

If the government is to lead, it first has to increase its presence in rural areas by decentralizing personnel, functions and finance to the sub-district level. Currently, on average, only one third of state government jobs are in local governments. The majority are centralized in the state capital and its deconcentrated offices, like the District Offices of various departments. This inter-se allocation of personnel needs to be reversed and officers reallocated closer to the people. This implies starting a conversation with state governments.

Mr. Piyush Goyal, the effervescent minister for power, coal and renewable energy recently successfully concluded just such a conversation around restructuring DISCOM debt. This model of cooperative federalism can be replicated for personnel reallocation – targeted central funds for measurable actions.

A second conversation also needs to be started for levying Income Tax on agriculture. The tortuous but eventually successful negotiations around GST provide the replicable model for this thorny issue. States may be happy to let the central government impose the tax and share the proceeds- for them a windfall gain with no political downside..

rural-rich

End untargeted agriculture subsidies or tax agricultural income.

Use NITI Aayog strategically

As in everything else, leadership counts. The Prime Minister should consider shifting the attention of his “A” policy team – NITI Ayog – to agriculture, irrigation, rural development and social protection. Currently it seems flooded with all manner of residual work. It could usefully focus on delivering tangible, measurable outcomes from its two key task forces on agriculture and poverty alleviation set up way back in March 2015.

Recommending which PSUs to sell; planning new tourist islands and ensuring 50 gold medals in the next Olympics, can be done elsewhere just as well. Surely creating jobs in rural areas and putting more income in the hands of the poor rank higher in the priority list. There is not enough bandwidth to run all races simultaneously.

team-india

Adapted from the authors article in Asian Age, September 28, 2016 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/rural-jobs-growth-key-lasting-reforms-308

NitiAyog’s China style CEZs a big, bad idea

Bad ideas are as resilient as cockroaches — the only living being guaranteed to survive even a nuclear holocaust. Both have a tendency to resurface even after being squashed.

One such bad idea, originating from the Niti Aayog, is to revive the plan of special economic zones (SEZ) on a much larger scale as a carbon copy of SEZs in China. It’s called coastal economic zone (CEZ).

Shenzen

Shikao area, Shenzen at dusk. Photo credit: Xinhua

The ostensible drivers are the need to create more decent jobs- NitiAyog says these are generated only by large industries- and the desperation to revive exports. Both objectives are above reproach. It is the strategy to get there which is perverse.

India is not new to the concept of enclave development for export manufacture. Export processing zones (EPZ) have existed since 1965 when the first one was established in Kandla-Gujarat, followed by Santacruz electronics export processing zone in Maharashtra. These gave way in the 1980s to the stand-alone 100 per cent export oriented units. Next were SEZs with a legislation to support them in 2005.

Niti Aayog’s CEZ proposal focuses on coastal development. Nothing new here — 68 per cent of the 329 notified SEZs existing in 2015 were in eight coastal states. The only problem is that coastal states are far richer than the hinterland so CEZs will make them even richer enhancing spatial inequality.

The big change is that only two CEZs are envisaged, each of 2,000 to 3,000 sq km, to simulate the network benefits of regional development. Compare this with the 626 sq km notified for 390 SEZs, of which just 6 per cent or 25 SEZs exceed two sq km in size. But do we have excess land of this magnitude?

Consider, if Goa wants a CEZ. It must cede 50 per cent of its area of 4,000 square kilometers. With regulatory powers in the CEZ transferred from the chief minister to Union government appointed development commissioner, Goa would effectively revert to the status of a Union Territory.

goa beach

Goa. Photo: Wikipedia.

Should Kerala want a CEZ, it needs to convert 10 per cent of its land area into a “deemed foreign territory” managed from Delhi. How well this will go down with the fiercely combative citizens of Kerala is anybody’s guess. Contiguous states can join hands to reduce the area surrendered by each. But this could invite administrative complexity and delays in harmonising norms and work practices across states.

The NitiAyog paper says Shenzen in China before it became the first SEZ had just 300,000 people. Today 11 million people live there. Only problem, in coastal India the average density of population is around 940. In a 3000 square kilometer area there would already be 3 million living there.

So is the CEZ proposal just old wine in a new bottle? And is it pragmatic?

Tax havens are yesterdays means of boosting exports

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) surveyed 100 developing country export zones in 2015. They concluded that islands of excellence, with special set of laws, rules and practices — as proposed in a CEZ — can create enormous political risk by excluding others from development. Political risk is not an issue in single-party, authoritarian China. But India cannot afford to segment development and exclude large swathes of the “cow belt” where a large number of the poor exist. Unlike China, we have an open domestic migration policy. This makes segmented development politically impractical, especially on the scale envisaged in the CEZs. In any case, in the emerging plurilateral international trade environment, it is questionable if tax breaks and investment incentives are the route to trade competitiveness or whether strategic membership of free trade agreements will be key.

Enclave development for exports are “walled gardens” of the real world

Indian SEZs were primarily tax arbitrage havens with the added sweetener of access to land. The relative export competitiveness of SEZ units versus exports from the domestic trade area, declined significantly in 2013, as soon as the exemption from Minimum Alternative Tax was withdrawn in 2012. This shows that state-driven market distortions do not boost exports in a sustained manner. Another reason why the SEZ scheme floundered was that import taxes and licenses got rationalized across the board and it became easier to import for export across the country. Coupled with the advatngaes of free access to the Indian market locating outside the SEZs became more attractive. SEZs remain a favourite for IT industries, which are mainly export driven and have a culture of enclaved bubbles.

Freedom_Park

Freedom – Bangalore style Photo; wikipedia

There is no alternative to maintaining a competitive exchange rate; managing inflation and broad based, deep administrative reform to enhance exports.

Between 2006 and 2014, 1.4 million jobs were created in SEZs — an impressive 50 per cent of the total increase of 3 million in private employment. But it is unclear if these were all new jobs or the result of existing domestic area export units simply shifting into a SEZ to avail tax advantages.

Land scams accompany if Union government usurps what should be done locally

Consider the 2014 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG): “Land appeared to be the most crucial and attractive component of the scheme (SEZ)”. In a replay of the coal mining scam, the regulatory gaps emanating from the constitutionally mandated division of oversight between the Union and the state government were exploited. The Union government notifies and de-notifies SEZ land. But it turns a blind eye to the responsibility of the state governments to ensure against scams in the acquisition and subsequent use of such land. Instances of inclusion of ineligible land for notification; allotment of land far in excess of need and protracted non-use of notified land by SEZs, all resulted in the diversion of SEZ land for more lucrative commercial exploitation.

The suspicion of mala-fide intentions is strengthened because state governments sold land, acquired for public purpose prior to 2007, to developers rather than giving it on lease, which would have retained their oversight over its use. Estimating the resultant undue benefits is tough without a forensic audit. It is telling that documents relating to 47 SEZs, including most of the biggest ones, were not provided to the CAG for audit by the Ministry of Commerce.  But even with what was handed over to CAG the results are shocking.

73 per cent of the land notified for nine SEZs in three states was for “restricted” use only – forest, defence and irrigated land, which was not eligible to be notified. Operations started only on 62 per cent of the 456 square kilometers of land notified till March 31, 2013. In eighteen SEZs, operating across eight states, only 17 percent of the 42 square miles notified was actually used for “processing” against the norm of using at least 50 per cent. With large amounts of unused land available, private developers successfully approached the government to de-notify SEZ land which could be used for more lucrative commercial purposes. Assuming that just 25 per cent of the 456 sq km, notified till 2013, was misused, the potential extra-legal earnings would have been to the tune of Rs 4,500 crore — minor pickings by the standards of contemporary scams.

Good policy is never backward looking and can benefit from past errors. If CEZs are to be headline-grabbers in the 2016 Budget, they must have caveats: No new land should be acquired for them. If land is needed the private developer should follow the negotiation route popularized in Punjab and now by Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh; No fresh public finance should be available for CEZs; All additional infrastructure needs must be funded by the private developer; Instead of the Union government, the state governments should be in the driver’s seat; and, states should enact their own CEZ legislations (as was done by Rajasthan in labour laws) which could be approved by the President, if constitutionally required.

Adherence to the fiscal deficit targets requires conserving public finance. Developing the richer coastal areas runs contrary to the Prime Ministers vision of development for all. Most importantly, getting directly involved in land and urban development — both of which have been fertile ground for scams — is unwise for a reformist Union government. This high risk strategy is not the best option for sustainable gains in private investment, employment and exports.

port

The duality of Indian ports: Photo credit : alamy.com

Adapted from the authors  article in Asian Age March 17, 2015 http://www.asianage.com/columnists/z-coastal-economic-zones-590

 

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: