It’s All In The Sequencing

There is silence on how the digital payments universe will foster competition, spur innovation and design a regulatory framework to protect consumers

Public policy discussions globally have often debated the role and sequencing of regulatory reforms in the series of structural changes necessary for introducing market dynamics to state-controlled economies. In India, post 1991 reforms, this critical issue was not adequately deliberated; worse, the government’s piecemeal approach to reforms and policy planners’ disregard for prioritizing regulatory reform inevitably led to regulatory capture and crony capitalism.

The demonetisation exercise is another pertinent example of how non-systemic reforms, without preceding regulatory reform, lead to chaos and economic dislocation. The withdrawal of 86% currency overnight was accompanied by a steady stream of shifting narratives: launched initially to curtail counterfeiting and currency hoarding, the objective soon segued to facilitating a digital payments infrastructure. But the lack of any planning before introducing this coercive shock, or the absence of preparatory infrastructure build-up and roll-out, has nullified all initial benefits.

Digital payments values and volumes went up between 8 November and 31 December 2016 because people had no other options. A recent research report from securities firm Motilal Oswal estimates that digital payments reduced substantially by May. For example, Motilal Oswal’s calculations show cumulative value of transactions across all digital payments channels during May at Rs111.55 trillion, down from the December 2016 peak of Rs131.45 trillion. The report disregards the Rs180.73 trillion spike during March, attributed primarily to seasonal phenomena.

Even a senior executive from the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) was quoted in this newspaper as saying the December spike in digital payments had ebbed by April.

So, what has demonetisation achieved? Observers cite two tangible, but divergent, results: a political victory through electoral gains in Uttar Pradesh and deepening agricultural distress leading to widespread farmer unrest. While there is no detailed, granular research linking demonetisation and these two outcomes, there is one noteworthy collateral benefit though: casting a wider net exposes the asymmetrical regulatory landscape in the payments and settlement ecosystem.

Soon after demonetisation, the Ratan Watal committee on digital payments advanced its deadlines and rushed through its report submission. Another committee of chief ministers was set up by Niti Aayog under Andhra Pradesh chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu. This committee spawned another committee for digital payments security under IT secretary Aruna Sundararajan. Niti Aayog has set up another committee helmed by chief executive officer Amitabh Kant to “enable 100% conversion of government-citizen transactions to the digital platform”. Meanwhile, the ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) has issued its own guidelines to facilitate adoption of electronic payments and receipts for various government services. Before all this, in June 2016, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had set up an inter-regulatory working group on fintech and digital payments, though the fate of this committee is not yet known. Besides, demonetisation also occasioned a host of other private reports.

Predictably, such a surfeit of committees and reports has led to overlaps and repetition. A cursory reading might even give the idea that committees are competing among themselves to say the same things. However, the burst of reports and recommendations in the first flush of demonetisation seems to have petered out: nobody seems to be listening and there doesn’t seem to be any urgency to implement many of the suggestions.

For example, the Watal committee’s recommendation of carving payments regulation out of RBI’s jurisdiction and making it into an independent body met with resistance from the central bank; eventually, finance minister Arun Jaitley announced the setting up of a payments regulatory board in his 2017-18 Budget speech (to replace the existing Board for Regulation and Supervision of Payment and Settlement Systems, or BPSS) on the lines suggested by the committee, but with one critical exception: the board will have three members from RBI and an equal number from the government, thereby diluting its independent status.

Many other skews in the regulatory architecture have been pointed out but remain unresolved. For example, as owner and operator of the retail digital payments network, the NPCI is a provider of critical infrastructure; but, simultaneously, it also competes with users by pushing its own payment products and services. In addition, its entire equity capital is owned by 56 banks, which automatically puts non-bank payment service providers at a distinct disadvantage and raises questions of infrastructure neutrality.

There is also complete silence on how the digital payments universe and its regulators will foster competition, encourage innovation and design a regulatory framework to protect consumers. Currently, allowing only banks to access the payments network—and denying that to non-banks—seems to be the default regulatory design.

The attention of policy planners and administrators might have been temporarily diverted to the other elephant in the room: goods and services tax, which goes live from 1 July. But, GST’s success is also predicated on a robust and secure digital payments network; an ad hoc digital payments network spells only provisional success for GST.

The above article was originally published in Mint newspaper and can be read here as well

Reorienting India’s Trade Policy

It is vital that India’s trade policy, while taking cognizance of GST’s nitty-gritties, also realigns domestic trade infrastructure with the altering global trade landscape

India’s commerce ministry is conducting a mid-year review of its trade policy to closely align it with the roll-out of the goods and services tax (GST) on 1 July. Truth be told, GST is important but probably too narrow a peg to hang India’s trade policy from; it might make more sense to re-anchor the policy in the shifting framework for global trade and the rapidly evolving nature of globalization.

Deep resentment against globalization’s misaligned distribution effects, a widening wage gap and increasing inequality have given birth to an aggressive brand of nationalism. Strands of these have now found utterance in the economic and political policies of many countries. Brexit in the UK was sold as regaining economic independence from the European Union. US President Donald Trump’s executive decisions on trade (withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, restricting H1B visas, threatening the North America Free Trade Agreement) or geopolitical moves (hectoring European leaders or abandoning the Paris climate change agreement) were custom-built to address localized grievances. The sharp pivot by both countries—main actors in constructing the post World War II global trade, financial and security architecture—has made globalization a guessing game, bereft of its earlier certainties and confidence. Both countries are now seen as flag-bearers of a neo-isolationist doctrine.

Australia, New Zealand and Singapore are also following in the US’ footsteps, complicating India’s traditional trade matrix. The picture is further muddied by two momentous shifts occurring in the subcontinent’s neighbourhood. One is the ambitious Belt-Road initiative, a vehicle designed to rejuvenate China’s surplus domestic capacity and to give expression to its expansionist aspirations. The second is the recent schism in the Gulf with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Yemen and the Maldives collectively imposing informal sanctions against Qatar by shutting down transport links and choking essential supplies.

All these developments are bound to reorder the global trade system. Therefore, it is imperative that India’s trade policy, while taking due cognizance of GST’s nitty-gritties, also realigns domestic trade infrastructure with the altering global trade landscape. It is also perhaps the perfect opportunity for the policy to be more of a strategy document rather than a manual. The statement accompanying the 2015 Trade Policy states: “Change has been a constant in the global economy, not least in the international trading landscape.” Never was a truer word spoken, and never has there been a better time to factor this truism into the national trade policy.

Three areas demand trade policy’s attention.

One is to prepare for less reliance on traditional trade partners in the West while increasing India’s trade and investment footprint in alternative markets, such as the African continent. India started looking at Africa seriously after the launch of economic reforms in 1991 and then with renewed vigour after the 2008 crisis. However, promises to increase two-way trade between India and Africa to $90 billion by 2015 have remained largely unfulfilled. India’s trade with Africa touched $56.7 billion during 2015-16, down from $72 billion in 2014-15. The drop is largely due to the fall in oil prices, which contracted India’s import bill with Nigeria. Meanwhile, China-Africa two-way trade touched $215 billion during calendar 2014.

India has intensified its relationship with Africa, which includes initiating several high-level visits since 2015. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, President Pranab Mukherjee and vice-president Hamid Ansari have between them visited 16 countries, with senior cabinet ministers visiting the remaining countries on the continent. During May, the African Development Bank held its 52nd annual meeting in Ahmedabad.

More needs to be done, of course. Trade policy can examine how coordinated action between commerce, finance and external affairs ministries might help in expanding India’s trade efforts; for example, a larger presence of Indian banks outside the conventional East African theatre can help reduce export credit costs. This includes reducing delays in implementing projects under Lines of Credit, India’s flagship instrument for development diplomacy.

Second, there is a need for a clear link between India’s trade policy and Make In India, including strategic linkages through global value chains. Policy clarity will be required whether India desires domestic manufacturing platforms that double as supply hubs for a global market, or assembly units that can be folded up and relocated elsewhere when cost arbitrage dries up (Chinese mobile units are perhaps a good example). Trade policy may be able to play a role here.

Finally, there is trade in services. There seems to be a concerted move within the rich countries—through the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development—to open up trade in services, including movement of professionals. This has been India’s longstanding demand because trade in services has been asymmetric so far—high in capital flows, information and communication technology, but low in free movement of professionals. Rising unemployment, particularly in Europe, could be driving Western agencies to prise open employment markets elsewhere. India’s demand (and strategy) for trade facilitation in services should find some articulation in the revised trade policy.

The above article was originally published in Mint newspaper and can be read here as well