governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Posts tagged ‘Suresh Prabhu’

Indian Railways: Slow and unsafe

suresh prabhu

It seems to be raining rail accidents these days, with two in swift succession. The hapless Suresh Prabhu is a good general but an unlucky one. He made sweeping changes in Indian railways (IR) since November 2014 when he became Minister. Most dramatic was his willingness to diminish his “empire” by merging the rail budget with the national budget. Similarly, far reaching was his delegation of financial powers for purchase and contracts away from the moribund Railway Board to the General Managers of the sixteen different railway systems which manage operations. Good management practise, yes. But more importantly it severed the ministerial potential for graft. Not many ministers have done similarly elsewhere.

Suresh Prabhu – a good but unlucky minister

Mr Prabhu has offered to resign owning up moral responsibility. Prime Minister Modi may have to let him go, reluctantly. Such is the dharma of politics. Having another accident on his watch would be unacceptable! Of course accidents are unlikely to stop merely by replacing the minister. Data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau records that in 2014 IR suffered 28,360 accidents or 78 accidents per day. So the chances of an accident happening, anytime, are high.

IR is low on transparency 

IR would have us believe otherwise. In a document titled “Transforming Railways, Transforming India” issued in 2016, reviewing achievements since 2014, the number of accidents over the period 2009-2014 is mentioned as an average of 135 per year which resulted in 693 deaths. The National Crime Record Bureau data puts the number of deaths from railway accidents in 2014 as 25,006, with an additional 3,882 people injured. The discrepancy between the IR and the NCRB database is due to creative use of data by IR, which reports only “consequential” accidents involving derailments or collisions. The NCRB data is comprehensive and based on the First Information Report filed with the police for all accidents connected with rail travel.

IR not to blame for 62 percent of accidents

To be sure, not all the 25,006 railway accidents in 2014 were due to the fault of IR. 62 percent of these accidents occurred due to “people” error – travellers walking negligently on railway tracks and getting run over or falling from over full trains. But even around 11,000 accidents  year is worrisome.

Rail still safer than road transport

To be fair to IR, their safety record should be compared with the other option available to travelers – road travel. The safety record of road travel is even worse. NCRB data for 2014 records 450,900 road accidents in that year with 141,526 deaths and 477,700 injured. The combined length of the National and State Highways, which carry the bulk of the traffic, is around 220,000 km or twice the length of rail track. The number of accidents however is 16 times more; the number of deaths is 6 times more and the number of injuries is 123 times more. Whilst the safety of road travel is a poor metric to use, it does provide a perspective of the objective conditions, in which IR operates.

Other than the likely moving out of Suresh Prabhu and the resignation of the the Chairman of the Railway Board, the other – more worrisome fall out – is going to be a typical short-term, defensive response of putting safety above all else. No private utility could have survived without doing as much, routinely. Consider,how tangled the Nuclear Power negotiations became when government legislated to put the onus of criminal and civil liability for accidents on the private sector suppliers of nuclear power equipment. But government service providers have more leeway in avoiding criminal action against them for safety lapses.

Safety or speed – a false binary

But the fact is that choosing between fast, modern trains and safe travel is a false binary. The populist, Luddite approach of slowing down the speed of trains, to avoid mishaps, is like asking car owners to go back to Ambassadors to reduce the risk of accidents by traveling slower. Technology allows you to travel both faster and safer. Air travel is for example both faster and safer than road travel. The Hyper Loop, when it arrives, is expected to boost both safety and speed at lower cost. The Indian Railways compete with other means of transport like road and air. It must provide the expected level of speed, convenience, comfort and safety which comparable transport options already embed. It has failed to do that, thereby losing marketshare to road transport over the last two decades.

Just as high-speed highways and the growing network of air routes has changed the way Indians travel, the Railways must also offer a bouquet of services to suit the differentiated needs of specific routes and category of customers. High-speed, premium railway transport on high-density routes radiating out from the hubs of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai can transform travel by rail. Similarly, the rapid expansion of metro lines is a smart option to reduce the urban carbon footprint and road congestion.

Both speed and safety are a function of reliable track infrastructure adequately insulated for unregulated traffic ingress and suitable rolling stock. The planned high speed, dedicated, rail traffic corridors intend to achieve precisely these objectives – much like expressways do in highways.

Sans investment, neither safety nor speed is possible

None of this — speed, safety or security — is possible, unless we step up investment in Indian Railways. We cannot manage the 108,000 km of track and 11,000 trains which run daily, by jugaad, penny pinching, dodgy maintenance schedules and techniques, antiquated rolling stock, poorly trained and equipped personnel and management systems, which have not changed since the first train ran in 1853.

Corporatize IR for efficiency enhancement

Indian Railways must be corporatized so that it can shine like other public-sector companies like National Thermal Power Corporation, Indian Oil Corporation and Steel Authority of India. This is impossible as a government department because the administrative and financial rules are unsuited to the dynamics of running a business.

rail repair

Shun politics – Let IR become commercially viable

Railway tariff cannot be subject to politics. The same passenger who has no problem paying Re 1 per km for bus travel between cities pays just 28 paise per km of second class, rail travel and 45 paise per km in reserved sleeper class. Suburban rail travellers pay just 18 paise per km. This is an unsustainable and unnecessary subsidy, undeservedly enjoyed, mostly by the middle class. Rail tariff for non-AC travel must be increased to remunerative levels, thereby generating funds for improving the quality of services.

The spate of accidents has focused public attention on the need to restructure IR. What needs to be done is well known – using technology across the service delivery chain – track development and maintenance; signaling; rolling stock; communication; disaster relief and management systems. But none of this will happen unless Indian Railways is set free from the bureaucratic constraints which bind down its management cadres today. We can save lives, reduce the fiscal burden, improve rail services and make the economy more efficient by corporatizing IR.  Time to walk the talk on good economics also being good politics.

Adapted from the author’s article in The Asian Age, August 24, 2017 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/oped/240817/making-trains-safer-and-faster.html

Prabhu tightens “free lunches” in Indian Railways

indian-maharaja-train

If Suresh Prabhu has his way this is how Indians would travel routinely on vacation. Today these luxury trains are expensive immersive “period” experiences for foreign tourists. Photo credit: http://www.2luxury2.com

The 28 million passengers who use the Indian Railways daily fear March as much as ancient Romans feared the Ides of March. This is when the prospect of the impossibly low rail fares being hiked looms, and then usually abates, as political parties compete to “safeguard the people’s interest”. Indian Railways charges passengers, on average, just 29 paise per kilometre of travel, whereas in China passenger fares are four times higher. The Railways lose around `30,000 crores annually from carrying passengers, but makes up some of that by charging freight rates that are almost double the cost incurred. In China, freight rates are around half of ours. Add to this better roads, bigger trucks and fierce competition, and you can see why road transport has weaned rail freight away. The golden goose of freight revenue funding the Railways is dying.

Tariff not related to the cost of the service

Indian Railways increased passenger fares in June 2014 by six per cent soon after the Narendra Modi government took charge. The Opposition outcry was fast and furious. Around 20 million vocal suburban commuters, a critical vote bank, use trains as a lifeline in Mumbai, Kolkata and Delhi. The Delhi Metro (run separately by the Urban Development ministry) hasn’t revised tariffs since 2009. This ranges from Rs 10 to Rs 30 (around a Nickle to 50 pence US) for secure, fast, air conditioned travel with sparkling terminals. And yet commuters who cavil at the cost think nothing of getting into a shared auto rickshaw and paying `20 for a 2-km slow, pollution infused ride home.

Suresh Prabhu, who took over as railway minister in November 2014, is a battle-hardened, savvy veteran at reforming utilities from his days as power minister in the Atal Behari Vajpayee NDA government. Learning from his predecessor, his first Railway Budget in 2015 skirted around the vexed issue of hiking tariffs. His second budget, in 2016, was no different, except that he had developed a track record for delivering on passenger amenities — on cleaner coaches and stations, digital food orders; better on-time arrivals and departures; easier freight booking/handling; and a minister-on-tap app, that has almost become the leitmotif of the Modi government.

Only upward flex in IR’s new tariff 

Even last Saturday, addressing the Indian Merchants Council in Mumbai, Mr. Prabhu gave no hint of the thunderbolt he would unleash on September 7, with the new “flexi-fare scheme” for Rajdhani, Duronto and Shatabadi trains. To call this a “surge pricing” scheme, as most of the media has done, contrasting it with state governments banning flexi fares for radio taxis, is a little misleading. “Surge pricing” transmits both benefits when demand is low and higher costs during peak demand. There is very little “flexi” in the Railways’ scheme. Fares, even if trains are empty, will never fall below existing rates. The railway flexi fares only incentivise travelers to book well in advance, as the base fare increases by 10 per cent after every block of 10 per cent of available seats gets booked. There is a cap of 40 per cent hike for AC-3 possibly because this category, even at existing rates, is the most profitable for the Railways.

But valuable unwritten message: the value of time saved, via fast travel, does not come free

For all other passengers there is a 50 per cent cap on hiked fares, including for those travelling in non-air conditioned sleeper class (2S or SL) on fast premium trains. It is this last category that is interesting. These are truly the aam aadmi (common man) or students, who take a bus or shared auto home on reaching their destination rather than a taxi. By making even them pay what it costs for secure, fast, inter-city travel, Mr Prabhu has set the right tone for the inevitable future increases. After all, if the value of one’s time is low, shouldn’t one be taking a slow train instead at cheaper rates?

So why is Mr Prabhu trying to do a Ronald Reagan rather than playing with a straight bat? Why so much secrecy in tariff hikes, with no explanation of how the new rates relate to the cost of providing the services. Mr Prabhu is a master communicator, but the Railways appear to be still mired in a colonial mode.

colonnial-raiway

The Bibek Debroy Report 2014 is the only the latest in a long line of reports which has urged IR to restructure and modernise. But the Railway Board remains in comfortable colonial mode.

Independent Railway Regulator: Pending since 1989

Independent electricity regulators set up when Mr Prabhu ran the power ministry set tariffs transparently. The costs of offering different services and corresponding tariffs proposed by utilities — mostly publicly owned, like the Railways — can be downloaded from the Internet or a copy obtained from the commission. Then consumers can individually or collectively file comments and/or objections to the proposed tariffs. The process is transparent, access to information is assured and participation is facilitated. This is because Parliament legislated such provisions in specific laws relating to telecom and electricity.

The Railway Act 1989 also provides for a Railway Rates Tribunal to set tariffs in a quasi-judicial manner. This has never been operationalised by previous governments. Mr Prabhu said in his 2015 Budget speech that an “independent mechanism” for comprehensive regulation of the railway sector is needed. This is significant as it acknowledges that a precondition for bringing private capital and enhancing competition is the hiving off of regulatory powers from Indian Railways. The exhaustive Bibek Debroy Committee Report of June 2015 on restructuring the Railways similarly strongly backed such a regulatory system. But the elusive search for the best appears to have come at the expense of the good.

Charged political environment encourages “reform by stealth”

Even in the absence of a regulator, the government could have engaged directly with the public before a tariff increase. But the surcharged political atmosphere, with two major state elections around the corner and the prospect of delay, may have dissuaded it from opening a window for political protests. But someone needed to bell the cat.

In this country’s political shadow play, a proposed rate hike inevitably incorporates a rollback margin. So hope for a rollback in the cap from a 50 per cent increase to a cap of possibly 25 per cent. But be prepared for an era where the railway station is no longer the place to look for a free lunch.

new-station

Adapted from the authors article in Asian Age August 9, 2016 http://onlineepaper.asianage.com/articledetailpage.aspx?id=6283706

 

The tax collectors’ revolt

ITax

Last week’s “revolt” by senior income tax officers, meeting in Mumbai, against alleged micro management by the Union Revenue Secretary is unlikely to bother the average citizen. If anything, citizens would welcome glitches in tax collection behind which they can hide.

Mind the growing gap

But the revolt deserves attention because it illustrates a growing gap between officers and the political leadership. A similar gap resulted, earlier in 2015, in the extended and emotive agitation by army pensioners, for implementing the principle of One Rank One Pension (OROP). They and serving officers believed that it was a just demand being scuttled by the civil bureaucracy which acts as a gate keeper between the army and the political leadership. The revolt of the tax collectors is the second time that short circuited wires, between the political leadership and field level officers, are being exposed.

Bad strategy but genuine angst

The instrument chosen, by the tax officers, to voice their concerns via a resolution is questionable in terms of its efficacy as is the selection of the flash point for making their case. Unlike the army, income tax officers are no ones’ favourite person. The income tax department is, unfortunately, generally perceived as being self-serving and uncaring of citizen rights. Consequently, an upsurge of public sentiment in their support, as was the case for OROP, is unlikely. More likely, citizens would advocate even harsher disciplinary measures to pull up the department. Collecting tax is a thankless job.

The choice of flash point is similarly questionable — the transfer of a tax officer who allegedly adopted unfair means to boost his end-of-year performance. He issued a huge tax demand on a public sector bank just prior to the annual deadline and then allowed a refund of most of the tax amount immediately thereafter — a cynical “win-win” strategy for both the officer and the bank.

No one could possibly defend the officer’s use of “temporary tax terrorism” tactics. But the summary manner in which he was “punished” by being transferred (not officially a punishment), on the intervention of the Revenue Secretary, seems to have rankled. It does not help matters that the Revenue Secretary is traditionally from the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) but exercises oversight over the functioning of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under which around 8000 Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officers work. Incidentally there are seven senior officers of the IRS in the CBDT — the apex body for exercising operational control over direct tax administration. But none of them can ever break through the glass ceiling prescribed for them of the rank of a Special Secretary. This is lower than that of the Revenue Secretary, though they get the same pay.

Only empowered agencies perform

In India, we have not developed a culture of equality between field agencies and the secretariat. It is only in the armed forces that the correct equation between the secretariat and the field agency is maintained. This is visible during the republic day celebrations. In the line up to greet the President, the Vice President and the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary stands lower down than the three service chiefs of the army, the air force and the navy. This is how it should be for all field level entities of the government. The officer in the secretariat must never be the person perceived to be in charge of the field level operations. Maintaining the principle of unity of command and responsibility is a pre-condition for efficient functioning within an agency.

Towards a more nerdy Secretariat  

nerd

The job of the secretariat is to assist the Minister in parliamentary work. It is perverse to adorn secretariat positions with high level administrative powers. The nuts and bolts of administration must be outsourced to the concerned agencies created specifically for the purpose. The role of the secretariat must shrink. The example of Minister for Railways, Suresh Prabhu, is worth emulating. One of the first things he did, on assuming charge, was to delegate away most of the operational powers, centralized in his office, to the Regional General Managers. A secretariat officer enhances value, not by banging people on their heads, but by skillfully using an insider’s appreciation of the operating environment and superior analytic skills to facilitate the functioning of field agencies. Making officers in field agencies perform better is squarely the job of the head of the concerned agency.

In a more evolved work environment, the secretariat is where policy and legislation is formulated. The field agency is where programmes are fleshed out and operations monitored for results. The relationship between the two must not be hierarchical as it inevitably is today. Policy formulation and programme implementation are two entirely different albeit symbiotic specialisations. There must be give and take between the two. One way of ensuring this is to make the heads of both the secretariat and the field agency of equal rank. Indeed, this is one way a Minister — who often might not be well acquainted with her charge — gets a rounded perspective of the issue at hand.

The bottom line is that, whilst the Mumbai IRS officers have chosen their battle badly, their cause, as indeed the cause of all other specialised government agencies and cadres, needs deeper consideration.

We should be moving over to a new governance architecture which values specialisation and extends equal opportunities to all cadres, particularly those which already exist in the Union government. IAS officers, unlike officers from the IRS, are on deputation from the state government cadres to the Union government. The IRS is a home grown, central government cadre. The logic for not letting the IRS manage its own house is questionable. Inserting an IAS officer between the political leadership and the IRS seems an archaic and inefficient way of managing the vital tax function.

The manner in which a majority of the senior positions in the Union government are “reserved” for the IAS is archaic because it does not recognise the heightened role for specialisation in modern administration. Law, Tax, Public Finance, Infrastructure, Human Development, Industry and Trade, Natural Resource Management, Defence, Security and Intelligence are all stand-alone disciplines in which practitioners spend their entire working lives. It is inconceivable that value can be added in policy formulation; program conceptualisation or project implementation, without the relevant experience and skill.

Lift the glass ceiling for specialized central services

Inflection points are always graphically depicted by glass ceilings getting smashed. Institutional wisdom lies in removing glass ceilings as soon as they develop cracks and well before they are smashed by the force of change.

smash

 

Rebranding Indian Rail

IR1

Indian Railways: Lifeline of the Nation” — runs the bold title of a 2015 government white paper. But the reality is that post-1991 the Indian Railways (IR), whilst retaining its high ritual status, ceded ground to competition from road transport.

Too many consultant chefs

It has only itself to blame. The railways steadfastly stonewalled all attempts to reform its operations. Over the past 15 years, railway operations have been studied by no less than six high-level committees, under Rakesh Mohan (2001), Sam Pitroda (2012), Montek Singh Ahluwalia (2014), Rakesh Mohan (National Transport Development Committee, 2014), D.K. Mittal (2014) and Bibek Debroy (2015). There was no committee chair from the railways.

There are seven executive members of the Railway Board, its highest body, that functions directly under the railway minister. There are 9,124 senior Group A railway officers who are specialists in finance, commercial services, maintenance, operations, construction and production of rolling stock. It’s odd, therefore, that the government has never trusted these professionals to come up with a vision of what “the lifeline of the nation” should look like. In fact, this illustrates that reform was never an internally driven priority.

No internal support for reform in IR

Admittedly, with a large workforce of 1.3 million, unionisation in the railways is strong. George Fernandes, former railway minister (1989-1990) and Janata Party luminary, sowed his wild oats as a firebrand, railway union leader. But this is exactly why the Narasimha Rao brand of “reform by stealth” cannot work for the Indian Railways. The bottomline is that in such huge industrial enterprises there is no alternative to a broad consensus around reform and approaching it head-on.

Road wins versus rail

Truck

The railways languished in the post-reform era as it was unable to build private partnerships and leverage its assets. The government too seemed to have given up on it and turned its attention to building highways instead. So as rail passenger transportation doubled, road passenger transportation has trebled since 1990-91. The railways’ share of freight decreased from 53 per cent in 1986-87 to less than 30 per cent today.

The Indian Railways lost ground as it got mired in its own corrosive image of a government entity focused on social objectives — providing cheap, even free, travel. Thus, it lost sight of its mission to become the “economic lifeline” of the nation. Communist China moves less passengers kilometre per kilometre of its rail network than India. But it moves four times more freight kilometer per kilometre of its network than India. The India Railways’ priorities are time-warped around passenger traffic.

The seamless movement of freight over long distances can cut the cost of production and make industry competitive. Long-distance freight is best moved by rail. But the Indian Railways lost the freight business due to a monopolistic tariff policy for bulk freight, such as for coal, iron ore, cement and foodgrains. It is similar for the power sector. Bulk consumers like industry are still charged at penal rates to cross-subsidise rural and retail consumers.

Fuzzy mission

Railway minister Suresh Prabhu, like several of his predecessors, is articulate, public-spirited and full of ambitious programmes spelt out in his Railway Budget speech this year. On offer is more public investment to remove the choke points which congest and slow down traffic; a more extensive search for alternative revenues from station redevelopment and the monetisation of assets; better passenger facilities and continued implementation of the dedicated freight corridors.

SPrabhu

But clarity on the Indian Railways’ core mission is missing. This has to be, first and foremost, the movement of freight and increasing the railways’ market share in the city and suburban passenger traffic.

Three reform measures are preconditions for success.

City and suburban travel

metro

First, it is SMART to switch city and suburban passenger traffic to rail from road. The savings on travel time and the avoided cost of air pollution justify such investments. But this is an option only if we can make these systems attractive for private investment and management. Assured viability gap funding on the back of regular adjustment of tariff is a must. The experience of “independent” regulators in electricity shows that in large metros, with high income levels, cost-reflective tariffs can work, if customers can transparently see for themselves the value proposition the service offers.

Use scarce capital to move freight

IRFreight

Second, allocation of public capital across competing projects has to be “value for money”. The railways’ passenger and freight businesses should be insulated silos for accounting purposes so that costs and revenues can be allocated to each service. Our rail freight tariff is on average 40 per cent more than China’s. But our passenger tariff is on average 75 per cent cheaper. Investing to make freight move four times faster at 100 km per hour instead of 25 km per hour makes sense as there is room to reduce tariffs and expand business. Investing to move passengers at 130 kmph, instead of 70 kmph, makes no sense because although passengers are willing to pay for it the Indian Railways is not willing to charge for it.

Go for partnerships

Third, the Indian Railways must think of itself as part of a supply chain rather than a stand-alone competitor. It must seek partnerships with air, road and marine transporters, and with traffic aggregators that can yield better returns. This is possible through transparent contracts, even as the railways remains a government entity.

In 1990-91, India had few choices except to reform by stealth. We have moved on since then. The reform constituency has grown. The real concern now is how to insulate losers from the pain of change and development. Loss of employment or of land must be fairly and adequately compensated. Using scarce fiscal resources for this purpose aligns with equity and is more efficient to bump up aggregate demand than across-the-board public sector pay increases.

Adapted from the authors article in The Asian Age, July 27, 2016  http://www.asianage.com/columnists/3-reforms-put-railways-fast-track-019

Indian Economic Survey 2016: Bewinderingly optimistic

Arvind S

Arvind Subramanian Chief Economic Advisor- GOI: Rising star and Rajan clone?

The Indian Economic Survey is an annual document that is wrongly titled. The data it reveals is overpowered by large dollops of economic wisdom, literature and policy analysis. Arvind Subramanian, India’s Chief Economic Advisor and the key author of this year’s Survey, has clearly burnt the midnight oil liberally in making the Survey a reader’s delight, even for one who has only a nodding acquaintance with economics, gleaned primarily by pursuing the pink papers.

Running hard to stand still

The key guidance the general public has been looking forward to, is the credibility of the near miraculous GDP growth rate of 7.6 % recorded this year and in that context, prospects for the next year. Unfortunately, clarity still eludes the average reader. Whilst generally optimistic about the government’s ability to improve on the performance this year, the survey is curiously negative on growth prospects for next year (7 to 7.75%), which it says would be strongly dependent on world growth reviving rather than domestic reform being implemented. Running hard to stand still is not a very good incentive for public sector reform. Consequently, India should brace for lower growth next year.

Better fiscal administration but significant legacy problems

The Survey makes the point that over the last year India has done more than most of its peer countries- those with an investment grade of BBB, including China, to retain macroeconomic stability per the index of macro-economic vulnerability developed in the Survey last year. But it simultaneously notes that the quality of assets in government-owned banks has been deteriorating since 2010. This is complemented by the overleveraged position of large business houses who are finding it difficult to service these loans because market conditions are adverse and both the top-line and their bottom-line have taken a hit. Exports have reduced by 18% last year and the competitiveness of domestic suppliers even to meet domestic demand is dodgy. The domestic steel industry being the most recent example.

The popular explanation for the logjam in corporate funds has been that the financial stress of big corporates has less to do with inefficiency or injudicious resource allocations by them. The blame is pinned on government projects not progressing smoothly over the last few years of the previous government resulting in corporate funds getting blocked unproductively.

gadkari

Minister Nitin Gadkari doing the impossible- shaking the dust off moribund highway projects

But over the current year Minister Nitin Gadkari has revitalized the implementation of a large number of projects in the highways sector. Railways Minister Suresh Prabhu has similarly awarded more than double the level of contracts in railways than was the trend earlier.

prabhu Minister

Minister Suresh Prabhu -improving the plumbing of  Indian Rail – a colonial legacy and democracy’s neglected child 

State governments have also enhanced public investment per the Survey which states that the combined public investment increased by 0.8% of GDP over the first three quarters of the current year versus the previous year with state government contributing 46% of the investment.

Why then does corporate loan servicing remain a problem? Is it just a time lag issue before public expenditure decisions kick in and funds flow resumes to corporates? If this is the case  the salutary effects should be visible next year. Or is it that the loan defaults have less to do with poor implementation of government contracts than with the “smart” arbitrage strategy of big corporates to borrow domestically in an unreasonably strong rupee, post 2013 and salt investments away safely overseas? Is it not necessary then to keep the rupee at aggressively competitive levels to avoid the incentive for “carry trade”, boost export competitiveness and price the fiscal impact of imports- particularly oil, realistically?

Does a high risk fiscal strategy make sense?

If the economy could chalk up a relatively high growth rate of 7.6% this year, despite the adverse conditions, why then is there a clamour for more liquidity and lower interest rates to kick start private investment and to fund higher levels of public investment in the coming year?

Would it not be sensible to stick to fiscal rectitude and keep the fiscal deficit target at 3.5% of GDP and hope for the same growth rates next year particularly if domestic actions will count less than world growth and demand?

Does it not make sense to guard against the risk of inflation- particularly drought induced food inflation? Our poorly integrated agricultural markets and inadequately prepared public management structures for managing food inflation by using market mechanisms are unlikely to be effective to deal with the risk of such inflation should the next year also be dry.

Oil prices remain volatile even though the survey is sanguine on the potential for an oil price increase. Whilst there is still no agreement amongst the top oil producers for limiting production, India is badly placed, being heavily (85%) import dependent, to bank on low oil prices continuing. Adequate fiscal space must be reserved for dealing with an oil price shock. These could be occasions when drawing down capital from a highly capitalized Reserve Bank of India (the survey labels it second only to Norway in being highly capitalized) can help without increasing the debt burden.

At least Mint Street is like Norway – we like that

Drawing down RBI reserves to fund dodgy capital investments in the public sector is a bad idea. It would be ok in Norway but not if accountability levels are low.Oddly, to an average India, the fact that we are close to being like Norway, as least with respect to the RBI is comforting and gives hopes. Indians are notoriously miserly and magnificent savers.

rajan RBI

RBI Governor Raghram Rajan – firm as a Norwegian rock: photo credit: businessindia.com

Tax revenue complacency

The survey skirts around the advisability of increasing the ratio of tax to GDP above the 10% achieved last year. It appears  complacent that tax buoyancy in the first three quarters of current year exceeds the average of the last three years- particularly for indirect taxes. The full year’s data would only be available with a lag but the budget documents would show if this happy trend has persisted in the last quarter also and whether the revenue deficit is indeed on track as a consequence.

Ignoring the impact of committed and contingent revenue expenditure

The significant burden (Rs 100,000 crore) imposed by the 7th Pay Commission has been dealt with lightly. Enhanced government salary and pension can increase expenditure by 0.6% of GDP for the Union government alone and threaten the revenue deficit target. The jury is still out on its possible beneficial impact on stimulating demand.

More importantly, the survey deals unduly summarily with the issue of enhancing rural income support and social protection as necessary adjuncts of macro- economic stability. Marco-economic stability can be the first victim if India’s political stability is compromised by concentrated high growth, which is not reflected in shared prosperity. The survey notes that 42% of Indian households are dependent on the rural economy. What it does not mention is the low ability of 60% of households to adapt to income shocks emanating from loss of insecure jobs, medical emergencies or other social obligations. Food for this segment accounts for approximately 40% of their expenditure. Rural wages are down 2.5% this year. Around 40,000 jobs have been lost per the Labour Bureau’s September 2015 report. Even the IT industry has reduced jobs and IT majors like INFOSYS -under a new leadership- are automating processes and putting employees out to pasture. These ground signals fit the survey’s assessment of India being in a hard place. But the survey is short on the best options for dealing with this economic shock.

The historical inadequacy in dealing with out-of-control and poorly targeted power, fertilizer, food, water, public transport subsidies hinges around the inability of elected governments to be seen to be heavy handed with income strapped households. These resultant fiscal pressures amounting to around 5% of GDP (all of government) can only escalate in the highly charged political environment during the next two years on account of state level elections.

A soft Railway Budget- harbinger of the main budget?

The Rail Budget 2016-17 could be a harbinger of such populism. Despite a large number of facilities and passenger amenities being announced there was no increase in the passenger fares which recover on average only around one half of the cost of services. Air India continues to be heavily subsidized. Loss making PSUs continue to sap public resources. How credible the fiscal consolidation plan can be in the face of these risks remains unclear.

Hopefully the Finance Minister will show the way on Monday in the Union Budget 2016-17. We await with bated breath.

Adapted from the authors article in The Wire February 26, 2015 http://thewire.in/2016/02/26/the-bewildering-optimism-of-the-economic-survey-22864/

Rail budget 2016: long on potential, short on reform

prabhu

Suresh Prabhu: An accountant in politics. India’s most affable politician: Photo credit: samacharplus.com

Even as Railway Minister Suresh Prabhu was presenting the Railway Budget 2016-17, the overriding impression was of a person pressed for time- not just the speech – more than double the length of last year’s- but also to fit his vision into the period available to this government till 2019 and in the prevailing environment of political grandstanding.

Indian Railways is deeply researched. Starting with the Wanchoo Committee report 1968, seventeen separate committees submitted reports of which the most recent is the Bibek Debroy Committee report 2015. It is not surprising therefore that the way ahead is clear but the problem is in getting started.

The neglected child of populism

Indian Railway is the neglected child of populism. It is wrongly branded as a mover of people rather than a mover of freight. The recovery of costs in the lower class comprising 91% of the passenger kilometers is so low that the above cost tariffs of the upper class, comprising 9% of passenger kilometers, is insufficient to subsidize the former. This story should be familiar to Prabhu, who was the Minister of Power earlier. The average recovery of cost is just 50% in passenger fares. The contribution of passenger revenue to total revenue shrunk from 62% in 1980 to just 30% in 2013-14.

The loss from passenger traffic is cross subsidized by charging freight 150% of the actual cost. It is no surprise then that only bulk materials like coal, cement, iron ore and pig iron, food grains, fertilizer and petroleum products- which have no other options- comprise over 85% of the revenue from freight. Other goods traffic has shifted to road transportation which is faster and cheaper.

Loss making passenger fares are the main reason why internal resource generation for investment has remained marginal and constrained track and rolling stock modernization.

indian rail

Indian rail subsidized fares mean high passenger traffic: Photo credit: Indiarailonline.com

Minister Prabhu announced a spate of passenger amenities to make rail travel more convenient, safer and pleasurable. Who will pay for them remains unclear. Passenger fares were left untouched which means the yawning revenue gap will continue to bedevil investment.

Freight tariff is crying out for rationalization and reduction to become competitive with road transport. No definitive plan for achieving this has been spelt out either. The burden of unfinished investments to make freight movement timely and to expand the basket of goods beyond the core bulk goods is steadily growing.

New financing

Prabhu’s financing strategy resembles that of a startups- which is to rely on Angel Investors to fund the revenue gap in the hope that profitability is around the corner. But in the absence of specifics this lacks credibility.

The prime thrust seems to be on bilateral (Japan) and multilateral (World Bank) funding. This is sensible in the absence of a robust revenue model. Forming Joint Ventures with state governments is good optics. But state governments are likely to be even more fiscally stressed than the Union government over the next two years as an outcome of the 7th Pay Commission award and the UDAY scheme for restructuring the debt of DISCOMs which requires the state government to take on their debt.

But it is a bad idea to continue to use the balance sheets of the railway Public Sector Undertakings (PSU) and other Government of India PSUs, as proposed, to borrow commercially for investment. Partnerships with private investors are welcome since the business risk is offloaded. But PSUs have low autonomy from the government and can be railroaded into mortgaging the future. Government owned banks are a prime example of the down side of this strategy.

If this Chinese model of off-budget financing development is used, Government must account for the consolidated assets and liabilities of all government entities, including government PSUs, in the annual budget. Taking expenses off-budget and hiding them in the balance sheets of government owned PSUs is like sticking our neck in the sand to avoid acknowledging the fiscal storm.

Vision 2020 how credible?

The minister assured the Parliament that IR would start using the zero based budgeting approach to provide the maximum bang for the buck. Indeed, hard budget constraints in 2015-16 have resulted in cost reduction over and above the reduction in oil prices- most notably in the cost of power purchased.

But if the value for money logic is applied to its vision it seems to be a losing strategy. Why spend scarce resources on speeding up passenger trains so that travelers spend twelve hours -rather than seventeen – from Delhi to Mumbai when you can cover the same distance in just two hours by air? Does it not make more sense, from a national perspective, to reduce the horrendous tax burden on air travel so that such long distance air-travel becomes affordable at the price of a Rajdhani ticket? Traffic volumes can drive down aviation costs significantly and simultaneously focus the efforts of IR better.

freight train

Indian freight train giving way to passenger traffic. photo credit Wikipedia.com

The comparative advantage of Indian Rail is to haul freight long distance; develop track to connect airports, ports, logistics hubs to markets; broaden the freight profile to include high value non- bulk goods – as proposed by Prabhu; improve metros, suburban trains and connect locations up to six hours of travel time. Even this is a handful, given the degraded status of track and rolling stock and the soft expertise required to run a business of this magnitude. Road, rail and air should mesh and compete- each with their own resources without differential tax distorting markets unless tax is used to price externalities.

Pressing buttons is good, but not enough

Minister Prabhu is sincerely passionate about making a difference. This year he compensated for the lack of real reforms by pushing all the required buttons- new jobs (0.5 million in 2017-18), make in India (two new loco factories), start up India (innovation fund), Swaach Bharat (bio toilets on trains, cleaner stations and trains), Green India (electrification, greening tracks, energy audits), Gender sensitivity (safety measures for women, reserving 33% of seats for women, digital help numbers) Sagar Mala (connecting ports), Cooperative federalism (JVs with state governments) and Digital India (SMART coaches, wi-fi at stations, monetizing captive, eye balls).

Each of these are great but small ideas which do not correct the awry fundamentals. But they are a smart way to go. They also show that Indian Rail and Minister Prabhu are committed to the Cabinet form of collective responsibility towards national programmes.

But a business needs to generate enough revenue to invest in the future to be sustainable. Prabhu listed four Cs comprising the third pillar of his strategy – Co-operation, Collaboration, Creativity and Communication but he missed the most vital one – Corporatisation. Indian Rail must be corporatized and listed on the stock exchange, with minority equity made available to private institutional and individual investors just like the Navratnas ONGC, Indian Oil and NTPC. IR’s colonial structure must bow to the power of Mumbai’s Dalal Street, if it is to grow and serve the people of India.

dalal

Dalal street the wall street of India. Photo credit: Wikipedia.com

Adapted from the authors article in swarajyamag February 26, 2015 : http://swarajyamag.com/economy/rail-budget-2016-long-on-potential-but-short-on-reform

FM Jaitley’s conundrum: Fat wallet but empty pockets

Jaitley fat wallet

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

Imagine if FM Jaitley had admitted in his budget speech of February 28 that of the Rs 17.77 lakh crores (US$ 287 billion) of expenditure he was tabling in Parliament, less than one third was really available for innovating on the past trends and the bulk of the funds relate to liabilities already contracted before the year begins.

Given the lack of fiscal space for new commitments one would think then that the budget would be transparently split between contractual liabilities of past decisions, which are “sunk cost”- loosely defined and new budget allocations to make instant and easy sense to citizens. After all it is the “new” allocations that everyone looks forwards to, assuming that they could perturb the status quo and kick start growth.

But you will not find the budget classified thus, even though the eleven budget documents, excluding the Finance Bill, runs into 949 pages! Instead it is split between Plan and Non Plan expenses – a practice that should thankfully end now with the demise of the Planning Commission– or Revenue and Capital, another archaic distinction, which was traditionally used to track investment expenditure due to the traditional direct linkage between investment and growth. But increasingly, the right kind of revenue expenditure is also critical. Funded by the “revenue black box” are catalysts for efficiency and innovation led growth- skilled employees; functioning institutions and well maintained public assets.

The cost of feeding the public beast

How much needs to be spent just to keep government systems alive even if they do nothing of value for citizens? This is a close proxy for “current liabilities”.

First, civilian employee pay and allowances account for around 8% of total expenditure, not high at all by international standards where high, double digit proportions are the norm.

Second,  expenditure on pension of government employees accounts for 5% of total expenditure but growing rapidly as ex-babu couples age and live longer.

Third, the administrative cost (providing workplaces, consumables and equipment) of managing 3.6 million civilian government employees has to be paid for. Assuming administrative cost to be one third of pay and allowances it amounts to around 3% (0.33 of 8%) of total expenditure.

Fourth, annual interest on government debt accounts for 26% of total expenditure.

Fifth, is expense on maintaining physical assets- the Achilles heel of the government. Chronic under provisioning results in axle-breaking pot holes; overflowing public toilets; broken x-ray machines and no doors or windows in classrooms. Two decades ago the PPP model for providing public services seemed like the way to go but those hopes faded.

Guess what? Maintenance expense is not transparently available as a separate line item in the budget documents. This is not surprising since the government has, inexplicably, not adopted a more complete economic classification of budget items, endorsed by the IMF and followed internationally.

Today we will have to make do with assumptions- albeit conservative ones. A God send is that ever since the promulgation of the FRBM Act the government is obliged to share an asset register of civilian assets (which excludes cabinet secretariat-a code word for India’s spooks; defence; police; atomic energy and space which together account for approximately 46% of the annual CAPEX).

The register of physical assets (excluding land) for 2013-14 values civilian assets at a measly Rs 1.87 lakh crores (US$ 30 billion) for a Rs 141.09 lakh crore (US$ 2 Trillion) economy. It seems designed, like the asset declarations of politicians, to hide more than it reveals.

Assuming a thumb rule asset value 20 times the annual capital expenditure yields a “notional” but more realistic value for government assets (other than land) of Rs 48.76 lakh crores (US$ 786 billion). Annual maintenance at 2% of “notional” asset value requires an additional 5% of total expenditure.

Just these five “tied” revenue expenses, all of which account for 47% of the total expenditure, reduce the “free play” money with the FM to 53% of total expenditure.

The drag of politics

But it doesn’t end here. Central assistance for states is what gives leverage to the PM to negotiate with state governments. In the new “cooperative federalism” framework envisaged by the PM, after the niceties are done, bargaining power will depend on the fiscal muscle the union government can flex in inter-state negotiations. How else could the PM, for example, influence the governments of Haryana and Delhi or the governments of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka to share water with the minimum of bloodletting as the searing heat of May pushes up water consumption? The 2015-16 allocation accounts for just 1% but is highly politically sensitive to change.

Subsidies on items like food, fertilizer and petroleum and interest subsidy account for 14% of the total expenditure and also fall in this category. “We need to cut subsidy leakages not subsidies themselves” is what FM Jaitley remarked in his FY 16 Budget Speech on February 28, 2015.

The “Statement of Fiscal Responsibility” tabled under the requirements of the “Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management  (FRBM) Act, 2003” unveils the FM’s hope that subsidies shall decline from 2% of GDP in 2014-15 to 1.6% of GDP in 2017-18. This could happen if annual GDP growth accelerates to the targeted 7.5% whilst the nominal amount of subsidy grows slower. But it sounds like an over optimistic assessment.

True, subsidies can be better targeted to eliminate waste and corruption. But there are also millions who are eligible for subsidy, but remain unable to access it today, because of complex administrative arrangements and poor documentation.  If the JAM (Jan Dhan, Aadhar, Mobiles) inclusion initiative succeeds it will likely swell the numbers accessing subsidy. Consequently, the jury is out on the net savings that better administration of subsidy can achieve.

Accounting for the amounts committed to assistance for states and subsidies, the “play” money available to the FM reduces from 53% to 38% of total expenditure.

Funding White Elephants

The remaining 38% or Rs 7.18 lakh crores (US$ 116 billion) sounds like a lot of money. But we still have not accounted for the FMs compulsion to fund the variable costs of programs managed by the mind boggling 72 (seventy two) departments of the union government-each a fiefdom in itself.

Not accounted either are allocations for ongoing projects which are unproductive “sunk cost” unless completed and operationalized. Budget 2015-16 proposes parceling out Rs 1.11 lakh crore (US$ 18 billion) of CAPEX  as grants to as many as 375 projects.

Oddly, the budget documents make no distinction between CAPEX allocations to ongoing projects and the CAPEX for new projects. Could this be because making such information public may reveal the absence of fiscal space for new projects or force government to abandon undeserving old projects?

Inefficient governments under-allocate to old projects thereby making space for announcing new ones. This makes sense politically, if sharing “pork” is the mantra of survival. But it happens at the expense of previous investment lying unutilized, worsening thereby the Incremental Capital Output Ratio- jargon for how much bang each buck buys and increases the interest burden every year as borrowed funds lie unproductively in incomplete projects.

To be sure none of this mess is of FM Jaitley’s making. But it is fair to expect him to clean it up since PM Modi’s is a government which works.

There are four initiatives the FM must launch to achieve this worthy objective.

First, he must walk the budget speech to aggressively resuscitate the PPP model and not solely because it pulls private capital into public projects. Partnering with the private sector forces the government to be efficient, effective and results oriented. Entering into explicit contracts with the private sector also makes information public, which can then be used to hold government accountable.

Second, the economic rationale behind civilian investment decisions must be made public. How are potential investments ranked? Hopefully, making the investment and economic analysis public knowledge can reduce the political noise and avoid wasteful decisions. We cannot just leave it to path breaking individual ministers like Suresh Prabhu to be punctiliously technocratic, as he was in the Railways Budget 2015-16. The weight of public opinion, via direct participation, must be institutionalized to assist the government in avoiding “bridges to nowhere”.

Third, at least ruling party MPs must commit time and effort to disseminate the logic of the budget to their constituents. It is for this purpose that Parliament takes a month’s recess during the Budget session- this year from March 24 to April 20. Have, at least, the BJP MPs fanned out to their constituencies to interact with citizens? Doing so would force MPs to understand the provisions better; come across as being well informed and initiate a more substantive dialogue at the local level. Delhi is a fish bowl in which MPs operate. Happenings here do not resonate with the rest of India automatically.

Finally, there is the appeal to save trees by reformatting the budget documents and making them shorter in length (500 pages for starters?) but more transparent in quality and to share both, the genuine constraints and the FM’s innovations to punch above his fiscal weight.

Budget to Build Institutions

Patna nagar nigam images

(Photo credit: viewpatna.blogspot.com)

We are, for the most part, what institutions make us. Some of us, who are exceptional, disrupt the status quo and change the universe. But generally, such special talents are best in small doses. India has too little of compliance with formal institutional norms and a little too much, of the libertine spirit. Of course, when it comes to informal institutions like caste, religion or class the reverse is as forcefully true.

How can we rework our formal institutions?

What ails most institutions in India is that they lack charismatic leaders and citizens do not see the “value” attached to them. Parliament, for instance, is commonly regarded as a troublesome, distant cousin, who has to be invited to weddings, but from whom most decent folk would run a mile. The Judiciary, even though it has acted repeatedly for the poor and marginalised, is viewed with trepidation, because of the serpentine coils of due process it has wrapped itself in. The Police has traditionally been just plain bad news but now, even the civil bureaucracy, commands scant respect.

One reason for the decline of institutions is that most are closely associated with the legacy of the colonial government. Indeed many are still housed in the same buildings. Most still follow the same rules, which protect the State’s, rather than the citizens’, interests.

But more fundamentally, the conundrum is that India’s Independence struggle was not against the institutions embodying the “Raj”. It was against the foreigners in power at the time. We have retained all the vestiges of the colonial government; a centralized government; symbols of distant, almost princely privilege, for the elected representatives and an under-regulated (albeit also increasingly poorly protected) bureaucracy, trained and organized, to subsume the difference between public and self-interest.

The demise of institutions is a familiar lament. Can it be reversed and what can Budget 2015 do about it? Clearly, the decline is not related to a lack of finances, so change in resource allocation norms provides no solutions. Since 1991, the Budget Speech has become an instrument for announcing big ticket policy changes and this is where it could help. There are three major policy changes for building institutions, which merit inclusion in the Budget Speech of the FM.

First, build the autonomy of Municipal Government. ModiGov is focused on urban areas for economic growth. This is sensible. 700 million (50%) Indians, many of them not yet born, are expected to live in urban areas by 2034. Projectised resource allocations for roads, bullet trains, electricity, water, housing and “smart” cities are being made.

But allocating resources is just the first step. Unless the institution of Municipal Government is restructured, it is unlikely, that the good governance environment required to use these additional resources effectively, can be created.

Local problems need local solutions. But state (provincial) governments are loath to devolve powers downwards. India is a federal democracy. The Union can only persuade and incentivize. It cannot direct state governments to devolve powers.

The FM should use Budget FY 2015 to provide incentives for State Governments to devolve fiscal and administrative powers and functions to municipalities. One option could be a Challenge Fund, with a replenishing, annual corpus of Rs. 10,000 crores (USD 1.5 billion), open to competition amongst the Fifty Four cities, each with a population exceeding one million. Every year, the best five to ten devolution proposals, received from state governments, could be selected. Each selected city would get a direct, long term soft loan, against achievement of milestones, from the Union government via a Special Purpose Vehicle equal to 50% of the average state government grants provided over the previous three years.

This is a “win win” because it enables fund-strapped State Governments to redeploy their funds to other areas, whilst also ensuring more autonomy to dynamic and growth oriented States and cities.

Why is municipal autonomy important? Pan-national schemes are too clunky to be effective. Remote management undermines local participation, ownership and decision making. Meddling in city governance, by state governments, is usually motivated to extract “rent” or some other form of private benefit.

Politically, such devolution makes sense for the BJP, which is a party dear to urban hearts. In fact, rather than go for elections to Delhi State immediately, the Union government should first merge the three municipalities of Delhi into Delhi State, making it the first City State of India. The Union government could retain direct control of the Lutyens Delhi area, where the rich and the powerful live.

Second, is to build the autonomy of regulatory institutions and signal that where a regulator exists the government shall defer to the collective wisdom of that institution. Unless this is done, autonomous regulation cannot be effective. Making regulators effective is key to building investor confidence.

The prime example is the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) which is one of the oldest autonomous regulators.

The positive regulatory experience with the RBI (1934) and then with the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (1992), encouraged India to expand the area of autonomous regulation for governing Telecommunications (1997); Electricity (1998); Insurance (1999); Anti –Trust/Competition (2002) and Pension Funds (2013).

Our institutional record on managing macro-economic stability is poor. High inflation not only hits the poor the most but also erodes the confidence that the government is in control of the economy. Line managers in government have a hands-off approach to using funds effectively. The government seems complicit in being less than adequately focused on inflation. Public wages are 100% inflation proofed, whilst the poor and employees in the private sector have no such safeguards. Large scale public failures to produce domestic natural resources (oil, gas and coal) in sufficient volume, result in the import of inflation when international commodity prices are high. Poor infrastructure increases the cost of transit. Draconian regulations stifle competition and markets and increase transaction cost.

FM Jaitley needs to clear the air on the institutional arrangements for managing inflation and interest rates. The FM said in his maiden Budget Speech in July 2014 “We look forward to lower levels of inflation…” and asserted the need for “….macro-economic stabilization that includes lower levels of inflation”.

Both objectives have been substantively achieved. The trend is heartening and the FM is entitled to take credit for it. But in the aftermath of this success, there have been discordant voices on interest rates. The RBI Governor has consistently said that windfall benefits from lower international petro and food prices alone should not be the basis for reducing interest rates. The FM has publicly advocated a divergent policy of reducing interest rates to stoke growth.

This public discord is avoidable noise. It perturbs perceptions and muddies expectations. It makes a “dear money” policy less effective. It postpones investments, as entrepreneurs wait for the expected lowering of interest rates. Public unanimity on monetary/interest rate policy issues, with the RBI Governor taking the lead, seems the best way forward.

The Budget Speech provides a good occasion to underline the autonomy of RBI and to give it credit for monetary policy management. The FMs support for an autonomous RBI is bound to be reflected in the relations between other line ministers and their autonomous regulators.

A big gap in the regulatory architecture is the absence of an autonomous regulator for fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil). Coal, gas and oil have consequently suffered from regulatory uncertainty and mismanagement. This is in sharp contrast to the manner in which Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India have rationalized the bulk electricity and telecom markets, respectively.

Announcing a time bound plan to legislate an integrated fossil fuel regulator (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the US provides a good model), builds on the existing trend to club energy related departments-Coal, Electricity and Renewable Energy have been clubbed under the amiable and eminently qualified Minister, Piyush Goyal. This step would also signal the intention of the government to reverse the politicization of natural resource allocations, whilst also inflation proofing the economy from supply side disruptions.

Third, make the transport sector competitive. Indian Railways (IR) is the life-blood of integrated India. Its declining share in transportation is a result of previous governments bleeding it for political gains. As early as 2001 the Indian Railway Report, chaired by Dr. Rakesh Mohan, laid out a road map for its commercialization. Corporatization is a first step in giving IR the autonomy to compete. Corporatisation will also encourage IR to leverage its considerable assets; use the PPP model aggressively and improve its services. Minister Suresh Prabhu is quick off the block by devolving financial powers to Regional heads to enhance efficiency and transparency in the tendering system, within the existing architecture. But formal restructuring, which requires a bargain to be struck with the unions, would make his job easier.

National Thermal Power Corporation and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, both companies listed on the stock exchange, are shining examples of the advantages of corporatization and listing of State Owned Enterprises and their ability to grow, even in a competitive environment. Corporatisation of IR could be followed by restructuring, including possible vertical and horizontal unbundling and a public listing to enlarge its shareholding and expose it to the discipline of the markets.

Bullet trains are a visible symbol that India has arrived. But without the enabling governance structures to sustain such hi-tech assets, today’s advances could easily become tomorrow’s “stranded assets”. It would be a pity if the “smart” cities; the industrial corridors and the bullet trains go the way of toll roads and become pot-holed, one-night wonders. Projects only feed fish. It is institutions which teach a person how to fish.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: