Thursday, November 26, 2020

Rebooting Economy 48: Do tax numbers show a healthier economy?

 While government claims on tax compliance and GST collections paint a healthier picture of the economy, tax-to-GDP has fallen for three consecutive years and tax collections across the board in the first half of FY21 are nowhere close to FY20, indicating that trouble is far from over

twitter-logoPrasanna Mohanty | November 26, 2020 | Updated 15:35 IST
Rebooting Economy 48: Do tax numbers show a healthier economy?
Taken together, the claims on the beneficial effects of demonetisation and higher GST collections, made in November 2020, present a rather misleading picture of the state of the economy

Two significant news regarding tax collections came this month to assure Indians that the economy is headed for recovery: (i) demonetisation has improved tax-to-GDP ratio and tax compliance and (ii) GST collection crossed Rs 1 lakh crore-mark in October 2020.

The first one came on November 8, 2020, through a series of tweets by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was also released by the Press Information Bureau (PIB), and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The claims accompanied a series of graphs showing all-round improvement without, however, revealing the underlying assumptions and statistics.

The PIB statement and the accompanying tweet of the Prime Minister made several claims about the demonetisation of 2016: (a) "tax/GDP ratio drastically improved" (b) "made India a lesser cash-based economy" (c) "helped reduce black money, increase tax compliance", gave a "boost to transparency" and concluded that the demonetisation (d) has been "greatly beneficial towards national progress".

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 47: Do India's fiscal numbers suggest a quick turn-around?

Had the official databases of the Controller General of Accounts (CGA) and RBI been checked, such claims would not have been made.

Tax-to-GDP ratio is slipping for three years

The following graph maps tax-to-GDP ratio by using the CGA data on gross tax collection and the RBI's GDP numbers at market price since FY05.

Tax-to-GDP ratio reflects tax compliance and also the central government's ability to finance its expenditures and hence, is critical to determine the health of the economy.

The last three fiscals' tax-to-GDP ratios were confirmed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in June 2020 and widely covered by the media which confirmed that the ratio had indeed plunged to 9.88% in FY20, from 10.97% in FY19 and 11.22% in FY18 due to poor health of the economy.

Notice how the tax-to-GDP ratios take a plunge immediately after the demonetisation in FY17 and the GST in FY18. Like demonetisation, GST was also touted as a move which would improve tax-to-GDP ratios with the Niti Aayog's estimates predicting a jump from 17% in FY16 to 22% in FY23 (central and state taxes taken together) in its "Strategy for New India@75", released in November 2018.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 45: What is AatmaNirbhar Bharat and where will it take India?

The demonetisation and GST were the twin shocks that derailed the Indian economy. Demonetisation sucked out 86% of high-value cash in circulation in an instant on November 8, 2016 (demonetised at four-hour notice). Cash was rationed and people queued up daily outside banks for about six months to run daily expenses. More than 100 people died in these queues, millions lost jobs and other livelihood sources and it devastated the informal economy but these were never tracked or studied by the central government.

Before the people and economy could recover, there came GST at a mid-night session of Parliament of June 30-July 1, 2017, billed as "the second freedom movement" only to be postponed for two months the very next morning. (For more, read "Rebooting Economy 46: Who is designing India's growth path? ")

India is far more cash-based economy now, not less

The claim that demonetisation made India a less cash-based economy is contrary to official data.

The following graph maps the RBI's weekly currency-in-circulation (CiC) data from November 4, 2016 - 4 days before the demonetisation - to November 6, 2020.

On November 4, 2016, CiC stood at Rs 17.98 lakh crore which climbed up progressively to Rs 27.3 lakh crore on November 6, 2020 - a rise by 51.7%.

A "cashless" economy became the new objective of demonetisation once the central government realised its three stated goal posts - eliminate black money, terror funding and counterfeit notes - werenon sequitur.

Now that India is progressively becoming a far more cash-based economy, black money in circulation should also be going up - going by the fundamental logic of demonetisation. That, however, wasn't the case then nor now (real estate, gold , and financial instruments involve black money).

In 2012, the finance ministry brought out a white paper on black money ("Measures to Tackle Black Money in India and Abroad"). It listed the methods and most prone sectors generating black money in which "cash and use of counterfeit currency" (target of demonetisation) came at No. 6.

The first five were: (i) suppression of receipts, inflation of expenditure by businesses (ii) land and real estate transactions (iii) corruption by government officials (iv) financial market transactions and (v) bullion and jewellery transactions. After "cash and counterfeit currency" were three more: (vii) trade-based money laundering (viii) non-profit organisations (NPOs) and (ix) participatory notes.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 44: India's journey from one of the fastest growing economies in 2015 to slowest in 2020

The world was so horrified by demonetisation that Gita Gopinath, chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned other countries against following this and explained to a television channel that no macro-economist would recommend demonetisation to any developing or advanced economy.

She later published a paper in 2018 (co-authored by economists from Harvard University and RBI, among others) showing India's GDP shrunk by 2 percentage points that quarter due to the cash shortage (Q4 of FY17).

Former Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian pointed out in 2018 that this"massive, draconian, monetary shock" plunged GDP for the next 7 quarters - from an average growth of 8% in pre-demonetisation quarters to 6.8% in subsequent seven quarters. Since the GDP data has been fudged multiple times, these changes can't be seen in the GDP data now. (To know how this happened, read "Rebooting Economy XXV: How a series of economic misadventures derailed India's growth story ")

The RBI's Occasional Papers ("Modelling and Forecasting Currency Demand in India: A Heterodox Approach"), published on July 16, 2020, says the post-demonetisation years (FY18, FY19 and FY20) saw an "extraordinary jump" in CiC.

It said only thrice India had witnessed more than 17% surge in CiC for three or four consecutive years until then in the past 50 years. The relevant table is reproduced below.

Ironically, the post-demonetisation CiC surge happened when nominal GDP grew at less than 10% growth, while other three occasions had seen 14.7% to 16.6% growth - indicating it wasn't growth (leading to inflation) that caused it, but it happened "largely on account of remonetisation of the economy after the withdrawal of high-value banknotes (demonetisation) on November 8, 2016".

Digital payment falling post-demonetisation

The demonetisation's shifted goalpost (cashless economy) pushed digital payments without citing evidence or explaining the rationale. Whims and fancies reigned high in the policy and planning arena then.

It was supposed to check black money generating transactions and bring transparency. But the contrary has happened - India's digital payment fell drastically post-demonetisation - as the following graph shows.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 43: States exhaust MGNREGS fund, leave Rs 1,386 crore in unpaid wages

The graph plots "total digital payments" since FY10 from the RBI's annual reports (FY12 to FY20). "Total digital payments" include five payment systems/methods: RTGS, credit transfers, debit transfers, card payments, and prepaid payment instruments.

Total digital payments were fast improving until demonetisation derailed those. From Rs 2,258.78 lakh crore in FY17, total digital payments fell to Rs 1,369.87 lakh crore in FY17, recovered to Rs 1,638.5 lakh crore in FY19, and then fell to Rs 1,623.1 lakh crore in FY20.

It is more likely to fall further in FY21.

Has tax compliance improved?

The PIB's November 8, 2020 statement and tweets made therein claimed improvement in tax compliance (i) "self-assessment tax of more than Rs 13,000 crore was paid by targeted non-filers" (ii) 3.04 lakh persons who deposited cash of Rs 10 lakh or more but had not filed IT returns were "identified" and (iii) 2.9 lakh such identified non-filers responded and paid a self-assessment tax of Rs 6,531 crore.

None of this requires demonetisation.

Firstly, these are routine exercises carried out by Income Tax officials.

The officials have been identifying millions of non-filers and "dropped filers" (those who stop filing returns) through the age-old Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS) that tracksannual information returns (AIRs), centralised information branch (CIB) data, and TDS/TCS statements. (For more read "Taxing the untaxed III: Is govt oblivious to leakages in direct tax collection? ")

That the NMS was fully operational much before the demonetisation is evident in the third report of the Tax Administration Reform Commission (TARC) released in 2014.

The third TARC report said the NMS had identified2.2 millionnon-filers with potential tax liabilities in 2014 - up from0.2 millionin 2013. The relevant part is reproduced below.

The real problem is the efficacy of the NMS - what happens next. There is no data or information to show what happened in those millions of cases. Going by the falling tax-to-GDP ratio, it is evident that the NMS hasn't worked. (For more read "Rebooting Economy XXVII: Fiscal mismanagement threatens India's economic recovery ")

As for improvement in self-assessment tax, the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had nailed the futility of it in his 2018 budget speech. He said the presumptive income scheme (PIS), which allows taxpayers to choose a pre-determined tax slab on their own and pay tax accordingly without having to maintain formal tax records.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 42: How will changes to land laws in Jammu and Kashmir help, and whom?

Jaitley further said: "Under this scheme, 41% more returns were filed during this year which shows that many more persons are joining the tax net under simplified scheme. However, the turnover shown is still not encouraging".

That is not surprising. Tax officials have known it all along. Entrepreneurs and traders take advantage of this scheme to switch to lower tax slabs.

On September 19, 2020, Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur confirmed to the Lok Sabha how very few, only about 1% of Indians, pay tax.

In a written reply to a question, Thakur said: "Yes, approximately, for Financial Year 2018-19 till Feb.2020, 5.78 Crore Returns of Income were filed by individual taxpayers out of which1.46 Crore individual taxpayers filed Returns declaring income above Rs. 5 Lakh." (Finance Act of 2019 provides that individual taxpayers with income of up to Rs 5 lakh are not required to pay any income tax from Assessment Year 2020-21 onwards.)

No such data is available in the public domain to map the trend. Furthermore, whatever tax data are released, have not been updated after FY19.

Drastic fall in GST and other tax collections in first half of FY21

The second good news on tax front came on November 1, 2020.

The finance ministry released a statement through the PIB saying that the gross GST collection for October 2020 stood at Rs 1,05,155 crore - 10% higher than the corresponding month in FY20. Of this, Central GST accounted for Rs 19,193 crore, State GST Rs 25,411 crore, Integrated GST Rs 52, 540 and Cess Rs 8,011 crore.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 41: India's growing poverty and hunger nobody talks about

Now, such statements are issued only when the gross GST collection touches the Rs 1 lakh crore mark, not otherwise. Hence, there is no way of mapping the trend. The last occasions when such statements were issued, were: January and February of 2020 and November and December of 2019.

All those were part of FY20, none from FY21. This means, in FY21, the gross GST touched the 1 lakh crore mark for the first time in Q3 (October 2020).

The CGA provides some of these data for the first half (H1) of FY21, mapped below for comparison with FY20.

On every single count (corporate tax, income tax, various GST components, and gross tax collections), the FY21 numbers have slipped from FY20, except for IGST.

Taken together, the claims on the beneficial effects of demonetisation and higher GST collections, made in November 2020, present a rather misleading picture of the state of the economy.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 40: Why Punjab farmers burn stubble?

Rebooting Economy 47: Do India's fiscal numbers suggest a quick turn-around?

 While India is firmly focused on AatmaNirbhar Bharat for a V-shaped recovery, its key fiscal numbers show the economy is slipping with falling capital expenditure, muted consumption and higher precautionary savings

twitter-logoPrasanna Mohanty | November 20, 2020 | Updated 12:08 IST
Rebooting Economy 47: Do India's fiscal numbers suggest a quick turn-around?
Why India's economy has tanked more than other major economies in its first quarter of FY21 is well known

India has been claiming a V-shaped recovery from the economic crisis by quoting high-frequency indicators that don't capture the informal sector constituting 45% of the GDP and without fully explaining what exactly such a recovery means.

Does it mean the economy will bounce back to the pre-pandemic level of growth?  

If so, the latest fiscal numbers don't quite add up.  

Before looking at these numbers, here is what the pre-pandemic growth level was.

For the full fiscal of FY20 (lockdown began on March 25, a week before FY20 ended), the GDP grew at 4.2% - a sharp fall from 8.3% in FY17. The quarterly GDP growth numbers reflected a similar decline - from 5.2% in Q1 to 3.1% in Q4 of FY20.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 46: Who is designing India's growth path?

Post-lockdown, the first quarter (Q1) of FY21 saw the GDP nose-diving to minus 23.9% and the second quarter is likely to be minus 8.6%, according to the RBI's latest estimate although the official numbers would be declared later this month.

What do the latest fiscal numbers say about India regaining the FY20 growth level?

Here is a set of data on the central government's fiscal position in the first six months of FY21, released by the Controller General of Accounts (CGA).

What do FY21 fiscal numbers tell?

The CGA data shows the capital expenditure was much lower in July, August, and September 2020 (Q2) compared to the corresponding months of 2019. The gap reached Rs 21,701 crore by the end of September 2020 - a fall of 11.5%. Since capital expenditure drives growth, this would mean poor prospects for FY21 to match the FY20 growth level.

A similar trend is noticed in total expenditure, which slipped below the level of FY20 in August and September (two of three months of Q2) and the gap widened to Rs 9,209 crore (0.6%) by September 2020.

The fall in expenditure during the second quarter of FY21 is puzzling since unlocking began on June 1, a month before the second quarter started, and provided a better opportunity to raise it compared to the first quarter months.

Quite apparently, the central government prioritised containment of fiscal deficit over boosting growth.

It did achieve some success in September 2020 when the month-on-month fiscal deficit fell below that of 2019 - although the total fiscal deficit for the six-month period was higher by Rs 2.6 lakh crore.

India's fiscal conservatism, amply reflected in the liquidity heavy AatmaNirbhar Bharat packages, has attracted sharp criticism from several eminent economists because of demand recession that was noticed even in the pre-pandemic months.

Soon after the first quarter GDP number for FY21 was released (registering minus 23.9% growth), former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan wrote an article in September 2020 ("The Alarm in the GDP Numbers") likening the economy to a patient and said help (fiscal spending) was needed when the patient was still fighting the disease, else it might be too late and "self-defeating".

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 44: India's journey from one of the fastest growing economies in 2015 to slowest in 2020

Last month, former Chief Economic Advisor (CEA) Arvind Subramanian wrote about India's fiscal conservatism warning it against "succumbing to intellectual mimicry of advanced countries on fiscal policy".

In an article co-authored with Shoumitro Chatterjee ("To embrace atmanirbharta is to choose to condemn Indian economy to mediocrity"), he argued: "India's interest rates are not at zero and are unlikely to be so because of persistent inflation. India's borrowing is still considered risky, reflected in ratings that are hovering perilously close to being classified as sub-par. The favourable interest rate-growth differential that supports expansionary policy in the advanced countries is absent in India. India may well have scope for expansionary fiscal policy in the short run but not as a medium run growth strategy."

Growth drivers muted

Why India's economy has tanked more than other major economies in its first quarter of FY21 is well known. As far back as May 1, 2019, the Monthly Economic Report of the finance ministry (for March 2019) had acknowledged the slowdown for the first time and said "the proximate factors" included "declining growth of private consumption, tepid increase in fixed investment, and muted exports".

The following graph maps quarterly estimate of key growth drivers - government final consumption expenditure (GFCE), private final consumption expenditure (PFCE), gross fixed capital formation (GFCF), which includes both government and private investment, next export (export minus import) - from Q1 of FY20 to Q1 of FY21 to demonstrate how odds are stacked against high growth.  

Except for government consumption (GFCE) and export other expenditures declined in Q1 of FY21.

The insistence on fiscal spending (government expenditure), as against fiscal conservatism, is because this can be mobilised quickly to deliver results in a shorter timespan while others need longer timeframes to get activated and deliver.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 43: States exhaust MGNREGS fund, leave Rs 1,386 crore in unpaid wages

The uptick in exports seen in the above graph is of little consequence since the net export remains negative for decades, reducing rather than adding to the GDP growth numbers.

The following graph from the RBI's November 2020 bulletin shows more recent trends. The bulletin points out that import has witnessed eight consecutive months of decline, which may have reduced the trade deficit but reflects lower domestic demand.

Households opting to save than consume

The bulletin carried more bad news.  

It said the first quarter of FY21 saw a "significant increase" in household financial savings, indicating a pessimistic outlook on their future income.

It described this as "counter-seasonal", reflecting a reduction in discretionary spending and the associated "forced saving as well as a surge in precautionary saving".   

It also pointed out that this trend was "consistent with" other available official statistics, like "decline in private final consumption expenditure" and "surplus position in the external current account".

Taken together, all these mean demand will remain sluggish, slowing down growth.

This is far from an ideal situation that would generate hope of a V-shaped recovery to match the FY20 numbers.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 42: How will changes to land laws in Jammu and Kashmir help, and whom?

Import substitution and walking out of RCEP

India's policy of import substitution embedded in the AatmaNirbhar Bharat Abhiyan and walking out on arguably the biggest trade deal, Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), could prove counter-productive.

The RCEP involves 15 countries, including 10 ASEAN and two QUAD countries (Japan and Australia). Together, these countries account for 25% of global GDP, 30% of global trade, 26% FDI flow and 45% of global population. India walked out of it after nine years of negotiations.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar explained why: "In the name of openness, we have allowed subsidised products and unfair production advantages from abroad to prevail. And all the while, this was justified by the mantra of an open and globalised economy."

Here is a graph that shows how, indeed, trade has been unfair to India since 1971 - more so in recent.

Should India pull out of global trade and rely on AatmaNirbhar Bharat to deliver growth?

Even Arvind Panagaiya, one of the loudest cheerleaders of the government and first vice-chairman of Niti Aayog, disagreed. Subramanian and his co-author Shoumitro Chatterjee explained with facts and evidence why this was undesirable.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 41: India's growing poverty and hunger nobody talks about

In an article of October 2020 ("India's export opportunities could be significant even in a post-COVID world") they pointed out: "India's GDP growth of over 6 per cent after 1991 was associated with real export growth of about 11 per cent. Pre-1991, a 3.5 per cent growth rate, was associated with export growth of about 4.5 per cent. There is no known model of domestic demand/consumption-led growth, anywhere or at any time, that has delivered quick, sustained, and high (say 6 plus) rates of economic growth for developing countries."

They argued against import barriers saying: "First, foreign demand will always be bigger than domestic demand for any country. Second, there is also a fundamental asymmetry: If domestic producers are competitive internationally, they will be competitive domestically and domestic consumers and firms will also benefit. The reverse is not true: Being competitive only domestically is no guarantee of efficiency and low cost."

Sure, global trade has been unfair to many.  

Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and many other economists have exposed it, pointing out how global trade has caused widespread discontent not only in emerging and developing countries but also among millions of people in advanced countries (the US and Europe) due to multiple design flaws. These flaws helped developed countries more than developing ones and benefitted corporations at the cost of workers. They have sought to rewrite the rules but never suggested abandoning global trade or shutting one out.

There is another very significant reason why India can't afford to erect import barriers.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 40: Why Punjab farmers burn stubble?

Import is a significant driver of India's exports

Economists and trade experts are familiar with the phrase "import intensity of exports", which signifies the extent of imported inputs embodied in the goods being exported. In simpler words, it talks about import content in exported goods.

Delhi-based think tank Institute for Studies in Industrial Development (ISID) published a study in February 2020 titled "Import Intensity of India's Manufactured Export: An Industry Level Analysis", shedding light on it.  

It said liberalisation of trade, post-1991 had led to rising imports, especially of raw materials and intermediate goods, which "contributed to the growing exports of India".

As for "import intensity" it found that for the "whole economy" it registered a dramatic rise from 10.5% in FY94 to 12.6% in FY99, 15.9% in FY04 and 32.5% in FY14 - presented in the following graph.  

Clearly, the manufacturing sector benefitted the most. The import intensity for it grew from 29% in FY08 to 51% in FY14 (in a span of eight years). When different manufacturing segments were analysed, the study found petroleum products had 91.4% of import intensity in FY14.

The bottom line is that import restrictions will deliver a body blow to India's exports and jeopardise its future growth prospects.  

Reviving inward-looking and failed experiments of pre-1991 era will only end up promoting inefficient and inferior local products and drag down growth to what economists call "Hindu" rate of growth. (For more read "Rebooting Economy 45: What is AatmaNirbhar Bharat and where will it take India? ")

Is India ready for the "Hindu" rate of growth?

Rebooting Economy 46: Who is designing India's growth path?

 As India marches from one economic disaster to another, policy and planning appear to be victims of whims and fancies as and when they strike

twitter-logoPrasanna Mohanty | November 17, 2020 | Updated 08:34 IST
Rebooting Economy 46: Who is designing India's growth path?
It is not yet known on what basis the decisions were taken for demonetisation, locking and unlocking of the economy or import substitution to build AatmaNirbhar Bharat

Officially, India would enter into recession (two consecutive quarters of negative growth) when the Q2 GDP numbers for FY21 are finally released later this month but the RBI's November 11 report has already declared that it would be minus 8.6%. The first-quarter growth had plunged to minus 23.9%.

Though the pandemic and stringent lockdown played big roles; the economy had lost momentum long before that. The GDP growth had plunged to 4.2% in FY20, from a high of 8.3% in FY17. Going by former CEA Arvind Subramanian's estimates that India's GDP growth was overestimated by 2.5% between FY12 and FY17, the FY20's growth rate could very well be 1.7% (4.2% minus 2.5%).  

As India blunders on, creating one man-made disaster after the other, the questions that beg for answers are many: Who really is planning and designing India's growth story? Where is its blueprint? What are the guiding principles?  

These answers are important because there is little evidence of key economic decisions being made on economic logic, robust analysis of evidence and data, institutional and intellectual inputs or deliberations.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 45: What is AatmaNirbhar Bharat and where will it take India?

For example, it is not yet known on what basis the decisions were taken for demonetisation, locking and unlocking of the economy or import substitution to build AatmaNirbhar Bharat.  

Here is what is known.

Who designs growth and development policies of India?

Many may think it is the apex think tank Niti Aayog which replaced the Planning Commission and defends all key economic decisions even when evidence suggests otherwise or damaging to the people and economy.

That is because though the NDA-II dismantled the Planning Commission in 2014 for its Soviet-style government-guided five-year plans, Niti Aayog announced in April 2017 that it was preparing three documents that mimic planning: (i) Fifteen-Year Vision (ii) Seven-Year Strategy and (ii) Three-Year Action Agenda.

It released "Three-year Action Agenda 2017-18 to 2019-20" in August 2017, recycling old UPA-II era ideas and policies, except advocating two failed and abandoned ones: (a) PPP and (b) import substitution of 1960s and 1970s.  

The Seven-Year Strategy and Fifteen-Year Vision were never realised. Instead, "Strategy for New India@75" was released in November 2018, aiming at the government's proposed celebrations of India turning 75 in 2022, for which the Central Vista project is being rushed through the unprecedented health and economic crises.

This document qualifies to be called a five-year strategy or plan. Like its first document, it did not recognise the job crisis and the devastation caused by demonetisation while making claims like turning India into a $4 trillion economy by FY23 and pushing GDP growth to 9-10% by FY23. At the time this document was released (Q3 of FY19), the quarterly GDP growth was 5.6%, a steep fall from a high of 9.7% in Q2 of FY17, and yet, there was no mention of an economic slowdown.

It advocated boosting many new initiatives that were old ones but had been re-launched by the NDA-II after renaming: (i) "Make in India", launched in 2014 by renaming and rehashing UPA's National Manufacturing Policy of 2011 (ii) "Skill India", launched in 2015 by renaming UPA's skilling programme led by National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) set up in 2008 (iii) "Digital India", launched in 2015 by renaming UPA's NeGP of 2006 (iv) "Swachh Bharat", launched in 2014 by renaming the existing sanitation drive and (v) "PM-JAY" or "Ayushman Bharat", launched in 2018 by renaming and expanding the failed and almost defunct UPA's Rashtriya Bima Yojna (RSBY) of 2008, among others.  

All of this would mean that instead of providing new ideas and strategies, Niti Aayog was parroting government programmes. It could have applied its mind on the glaring failures of RSBY, which the UPA-II sought to soft-peddle because of multiple failures that persist today. (For more read "Coronavirus Lockdown VI: How India's insurance-led private healthcare cripples its ability to fight COVID-19 ")

Its reading on GST went horribly wrong. It projected that the tax-to-GDP ratio would jump from 17% to "at least 22 per cent" by 2022-23. The finance minister had first admitted to problems in paying GST compensation to states in September 2019, at the CGT Council meeting in Goa, due to slowing down of the economy.  

Niti Aayog is peripheral to policymaking.

In the meanwhile, the Prime Minister changed his mind to five-year plans, and in June 2019 asked bureaucrats to make five-year plans for each ministry with well-defined targets and milestones.

Could they be doing it then?  

This is difficult to say because no ministry or department has claimed so nor does any indication exist. Planning requires expertise which departments and ministries may not necessarily have or necessary bandwidth can be built instantly.

Could it then be the finance ministry?

This is unlikely, going by the 2020 budget statement. It was more of an election manifesto or election speech and less of a budget. It didn't have budget allocations but carried a full discourse on an unrelated subject - Indus script and seals. The budget speech claimed that the script had been deciphered and provided illustrations, while archaeologists, linguists, and historians who have worked in the area claimed otherwise.

Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the finance ministry was part of the decision making on demonetisation, locking or unlocking of the economy or that it provided economic logic supporting these decisions.

The mystery would endure until more information is available.

What principles drive India's growth and development?

It may not be clear who actually is designing India's growth and development path, but the underlying principles are clear.

First underlying principle is neoliberal economics pushed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which involves cutting down government capacity and fiscal spending (small state or government), handing over public assets to private businesses and letting private businesses dictate and drive growth and development process.  

That decades of global experience and evidence show such policies have led to an upward surge of wealth and income to the top 1% or 0.1% people and dramatically increased inequality is no deterrent. India's own experience shows a sharp rise in inequality post-1991 liberalisation that was driven by the IMF. (For more read "Unravelling GDP growth I: More growth is producing more inequality and misery ")

Second is a fresh lease of life to crony capitalism and blatant promotion of private business interests.  

Many lucrative projects and contracts are mysteriously going to select business houses known to be close to the government. One of them is the Adani Group, which has landed contracts to manage all government airports (AAI) for the next 50 years even when it has had no known experience or expertise in running airports. The group has also got many coal and iron ore mines in mineral-rich Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, often in violation of multiple laws governing forests, environment, tribals, and forest rights.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 43: States exhaust MGNREGS fund, leave Rs 1,386 crore in unpaid wages

Such is the drive to benefit private companies that earlier this year 41 coal mines were auctioned on the promise that it would create 2.8 lakh jobs and generate Rs 20,000 crore in revenue. When asked through an RTI application, the coal ministry replied in October 2020 that it had no data on jobs created or revenue generated from these auctions. Besides, it said it didn't have any report/survey/white paper/consultancy report/calculation to arrive at those numbers.

Ironically, the pandemic has seen active promotion of private healthcare by the finance ministry and Niti Aayog. Both have repeatedly urged states to provide viability gap funding (VGF) and handover government-run district hospitals to private players (PPP). (For more rad "Coronavirus Lockdown VI: How India's insurance-led private healthcare cripples its ability to fight COVID-19 ")

Both PPP and VGF caused incalculable harm to India's infrastructure push during the UPA-II years and contributed significantly to NPAs (For more read "Rebooting Economy XII: Is private sector inherently more efficient than public sector? ") and yet, on November 11, the Union Cabinet approved extending VGF for PPP projects ("social and economic infrastructure") till FY25.

For the benefit of defaulting private businesses, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has been diluted in protest of which former RBI Governor Urjit Patel resigned. (For more read "Rebooting Economy XI: Why are private companies so prone to financial frauds? ")

Third is to bypass every institution and norms of transparency and accountability in policy and decision making.  

The Planning Commission was dismantled in 2014 and replaced with think tank Niti Aayog that contributes little but cheers every government policy without applying mind and ignoring evidence, even when many like demonetisation, GST and lockdown turned out to be big disasters.  

The roles of Chief Economic Advisor (CEA) and Prime Minister's Economic Advisory Council (PMCEA) are not clear. The Parliament, opposition political parties, and public debates are completely out of the process. (For more read "Rebooting Economy 44: India's journey from one of the fastest growing economies in 2015 to slowest in 2020")

Also Read: Coronavirus Lockdown XVII: The economics behind India's Rs 21 lakh crore package

Laws are increasingly passed through ordinances, bypassing the Parliament and then passed in both of its houses without proper deliberations or referring to Parliamentary Standing Committees. The agriculture reforms which drastically changed marketing and stocking arrangements were brought in through ordinances, without consulting states while encroaching on their domain. In the September 2020 Parliament session, several laws were passed in the absence of opposition parties and without discussion.

This antipathy towards institutions and consultations has led to a bizarre situation where all critical decisions, like demonetisation, lockdown, and unlocking of economy, AatmaNirbhar Bharat carry no burden of economic logic, facts or evidence.  

From a good reform, GST turned out to be a disaster precisely because of its shoddy design and lack of preparation and planning (not yet fully rolled out) but nobody raised a voice. This reform was launched at a midnight session of Parliament and called "second freedom movement" and the next morning it was postponed for two months.

Fourth underlying principle is priority to vanity projects over what is essential and prudent.

The first project the NDA-II conceived, completed, and showcased was a statue (Statue of Unity) in Gujarat which cost the public exchequer Rs 2,989 crore, while it came to power promising development. The statue was imported piece-by-piece from China at a time when the clarion call was "Make in India". This money could have been used to build schools and hospitals that India lacks.  

This was followed by a bullet train project worth Rs 1.1 lakh crore on the Ahmedabad-Mumbai route, a corridor the Indian Railways says has 40% seat vacancy. What was the logic then? It is also evident that basic steps like preparing a project report, viability report, vetting by experts, and the Railways were not taken. India didn't have enough fiscal space either, forcing it to take a loan from Japan.

Amidst the pandemic, one more vanity project was announced: demolition and rebuilding part of the majestic Lutyens' Delhi, the Central Vista, at a cost of Rs 20,000 crore. Everything was done in secret: its plan was not made public; Parliament was bypassed even when it involved building a new building for it and turning the existing one into a museum and without statutory clearances - something no democratic and civilised country allows.  

Work on the project is on even when the Supreme Court is deciding its legality. On November 12, design for a commemorative structure, three times the height of India Gate was sought, which would be built on Yamuna's floodplain to mark 75 years of India's independence.  

Further, on August 5, 2020, the Prime Minister performed "bhoomi puja" to build a grand temple in Ayodhya.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 42: How will changes to land laws in Jammu and Kashmir help, and whom?

By November 13, 2020, India had lost 128,686 lives to the pandemic and total virus count stood at 8,728,795. Its health system has proved grossly inadequate, highly exploitative, and has virtually collapsed.  

The UK's The Telegraph wrote about India's response to the pandemic in an article titled "India's healthcare system on brink of collapse again as it hits five million COVID-19 cases" and stated that "India's public healthcare system is one of the most underfunded and understaffed in the world, with just 1.50 pounds spent per citizen." (For more read "Rebooting Economy X: COVID-19 puts question mark on private sector's efficiency in healthcare ")

But the pandemic did not provoke building a hospital.

Fifth guiding principle is to work to in complete data vacuum and dismiss inconvenient reports.

The only time the Parliament met during the pandemic was in September 2020. The answers provided to it revealed the government was working blindly: no data on (i) job loss of migrant workers due to the lockdown (ii) death of health workers and sanitation workers fighting the pandemic, though India honoured them by petal showers from the sky (helicopters flew all around the country for that) and by banging utensils, blowing conch shells and lighting candles in balconies (iii) death of migrant workers who walked home during the lockdown (iv) death of policemen on pandemic duty (v) number of informal workers, who were hit the hardest due to the lockdown (vi) number of suicides by students during the lockdown etc.

Even before the pandemic, the routine Economic Census had been abandoned. The NSSO's consumer expenditure survey of 2017-18 was junked because it showed 'real' household consumption had fallen for the first time in 40 years - implying that poverty was growing, which the Niti Aayog confirmed in December 2019. (For more read "Rebooting Economy 41: India's growing poverty and hunger nobody talks about")

Sixth principle is not to recognise any crisis or problem.

The government never acknowledged the job crisis or job-loss growth after the PLFS of 2017-18 showed a 45-year high unemployment rate; it even denied job-less growth after coming to power while it had attacked the UPA-II over it. It never acknowledged that demonetisation and GST caused loss of millions of jobs, livelihood sources and devastated the informal economy, leading to an economic slowdown.  

It is yet to acknowledge mismanagement of the pandemic that spread the virus to the hinterland (migrant workers were forced to stay in urban centres to which 15 lakh international passengers had come in carrying infection and then let the migrants go home, carrying the virus with them to rural areas. On the contrary, India has been claiming to have managed the pandemic well when it is among the top in total cases and deaths due to the virus.

What these principles reflect is that economic policies are guided less by public welfare or desire to provide public goods.

Also Read: Rebooting Economy 40: Why Punjab farmers burn stubble?

Rebooting Economy 70: The Bombay Plan and the concept of AatmaNirbhar Bharat

  The Bombay Plan, authored by the doyens of industry in 1944 first envisioned state planning, state ownership and control of industries to ...