Globalization: Much Needed, Yet So Treacherous

The unravelling of the quarter-century-old global economic order will have many effects, some unpredictable but mostly unavoidable

Developments in Germany have surprised those rejoicing defeats of Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders. Alternative for Germany (AfD) has won 13% of votes and is Bundestag’s third largest party; significantly, it’s the first time since World War II that a far-right, nationalist party has done this well. AfD will surely want to add momentum to this regained arc of history by chipping away at the economic and social policies that we now take for granted. They are no longer at the gate; they are just one step away from the round table.

It’s not happening in Germany alone. The assault on the established order has begun even in the US and UK, with policies now resolutely inward-looking. The global right wants to fashion many changes, including the framework upon which the current idea of globalization is draped. Politician Shashi Tharoor writes in his Project Syndicate column that the backlash against globalization will be felt on both cultural and economic fronts. The unravelling of the quarter-century-old global economic order will have many effects, some unpredictable but mostly unavoidable.

India’s version of the new world order is still work-in-progress, though early signs indicate a somewhat dichotomous character. India’s social and diplomatic policies are making a departure from the past, including moving away from their pluralistic, cosmopolitan and multicultural moorings. The resistance to Rohingya migrants—including hapless children, women and the elderly—under the implausible and untenable pretext of pre-empting Islamic terrorism is an example.

But, conversely, the current administration’s economic policies endorse the late 20th century world order, which includes an openness to financial globalization and a dogged belief in an economic orthodoxy that has been discarded elsewhere. Ironically, financial globalization—especially portfolio flows—is like the two-faced Janus: much needed yet so treacherous.

McKinsey Global Institute’s report, “The New Dynamics Of Financial Globalization”, sees a return to a “more stable, more risk-sensitive era of financial globalization” though manifold risks remain. India has been a beneficiary of global capital flows. Since opening up to foreign portfolio flows in 1992-93, India has received net inflows of Rs12.6 trillion, of which 32% was invested in debt instruments. In the first five months of 2017-18 (till 15 October), while equities saw net outflows of Rs7,054 crore, debt instruments received Rs1.11 trillion. This could be the fabled chink.

The first warning comes from Mervyn King, a former Bank of England governor and vocal supporter of Aston Villa football club. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, King warns of a “bumpy decade ahead” because of over-borrowing and the spectre of rising interest rates in the developed economies leading to a rash of defaults. This doomsday prediction might resonate with India’s twin balance-sheet problem (over-leveraged companies and contaminated banks). The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is under pressure to cut interest rates, not raise them. Assuming the RBI does slash rates, the slightest disruption in the global economy could still spell trouble, given Indian corporate and financial sector’s over-reliance on foreign capital.

The second alert comes from Deutsche Bank’s chillingly titled report, “The Next Financial Crisis”. It shows how the frequency of financial crises has increased after the Bretton Woods system broke down in the early 1970s, especially since it allowed nations to issue fiat currency without any disciplining restraint. The report lists 11 probable sources for the next crisis, which include central bank unwinding, escalation of global imbalances or Italy going bust. In short, the report states that the current global economy is “particularly prone to a cycle of booms, busts, heavy intervention, recovery and the cycle starting again...there will likely be another financial crisis/shock pretty soon with their frequency continuing to be high until we create a more stable global financial framework.”

Christine Lagarde, managing director of International Monetary Fund, provides the third cautionary note, saying that balance sheet unwinding by Western central banks, particularly the Fed, could lead to capital outflows from emerging economies and the ensuing volatility could even spill over into the domestic economy. She advocates gradualism and increased communication between central banks.

The fourth arrow comes from the bow of Jerome H. Powell, a member of Federal Reserve System’s board of governors. Like his predecessors, Powell reiterates that adverse consequences from central bank unwinding will be felt only by emerging economies with fundamental vulnerabilities, thus absolving Fed of fomenting global instability. While admitting that emerging economies are better placed this time to manage outcomes, he says significant risks remain. Powell cites research that puts emerging markets’, including the Indian, corporate sector debt at vulnerable levels; any interest rate increase, accompanied by earnings drop and exchange rate volatility can create “unpredictable and outsized” surprises.

So, while growth in the US and Europe is still gradual, Indian policy managers need to urgently put some risk mitigation measures in place. An obvious one is to immediately recapitalize public sector banks. The second is to actively catalyse investment: waiting for miracles to happen while drawing up a 10-point programme is so 42 years old.

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

India’s New Gene Is Called Plutocracy

India has been called a plutocracy for its manifest disposition towards the rich and the powerful

The stampede at Mumbai’s Elphinstone Road train station last week, which claimed 27 lives, holds up a mirror to India’s policy bias towards the rich and powerful. Many people (including this columnist) impulsively tweeted about the government’s penchant for bullet trains versus apathy towards basic infrastructure for daily commuters; the tragedy, though, showcases a much larger malaise, one that has been patronized by successive governments.

The catastrophe can be sourced to how politicians and industrialists colluded to develop Lower Parel, an erstwhile textile mill neighbourhood that has now been converted into malls, offices, TV studios, restaurants and residential blocks by tweaking rules and with complete disregard for the livelihood of its original residents, public transport or traffic growth. 

All cities around the world redevelop and rejuvenate urban areas but do so with some thought to forward and backward linkages. The rules designed to facilitate Lower Parel’s development had a sole objective: to help mill owners unlock land value without any thought of how millions of office workers and service providers would enter and exit the area. End result: the loss of lives at the Elphinstone Road station.

There is a name for this. India has often been called a plutocracy for its manifest disposition towards the rich and the powerful. Plutocracy, in short, can be defined as rule by the wealthy and the powerful, where policies and systems are designed to deliver greater benefits to the wealthy and powerful. Consequently, plutocracy eats away at the core of any democratic system.

A recent paper by Lucas Chancel and Thomas Piketty shows how India’s average real income growth accelerated post-2000. Simultaneously, it also shows how the top 10% grew at a much faster rate than the average, while income growth of the balance 90% fell below average. While the authors avoid offering any conclusions about the impact of economic reforms on inequality or poverty in India, their findings point to an uncomfortable truth: Post the 1980s, when the process of economic reforms began, the top 1% in India have seen their incomes and wealth grow at a much faster rate than the balance 99%.

Increasing wealth concentration among the rich is corroborated by Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report 2016: India’s top 1%, which owned 36.8% of the country’s wealth in 2000, now owns close to 58% of the wealth (the global average is 50%). An Oxfam 2017 report showed that 57 Indian billionaires own as much as the bottom 70% of the population.

Another paper by Dilip M. Nachane and Aditi Chaubal (goo.gl/gxLcwd) finds a plutocratic bias in the way India’s consumer price index (CPI) is constructed, by attaching greater weightage to items of expenditure consumed by higher income groups. This has enormous implications for policy design, especially when the Reserve Bank of India has selected CPI as its chosen benchmark for inflation targeting.

Plutocracy is also characterized by suborning of national institutions. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are perhaps the best examples of how this financing mode was used to reward private sector partners with state resources (including valuable real estate) with the government (or government-owned institutions) shouldering the bulk of project risk. 

For example, in airport PPPs, private partners have been treating public land as private property. Of course, there were many PPPs that failed because of bureaucratic stasis or other extraneous reasons but the fundamental flaw in Indian PPPs was hard to miss.

Plutocracy can also be identified in the way institutions behave. India’s largest commercial bank, the State Bank of India (SBI), decided to step outside its sandbox and experiment with new revenue sources: it decided to penalize customers who failed to maintain the monthly average balance in their savings bank account.

This example was quickly emulated by some other private banks. SBI’s haste and poor planning in announcing and executing the new revenue stream came back to bite it: a torrent of protests has forced the SBI to exempt pensioners and minors (whose accounts typically empty out soon after money is deposited) and reduce the penalty amounts for other depositors.

Policy haste, without thinking through the consequences, is quite commonplace in India, whether in government or in institutions. 

The SBI example shows how policy moves when it does not take into account customer profile, feasibility options or its impact on various income groups. Demonetization is another example of how an autarchic policy decision affected livelihoods for a wide spectrum of the population. 

What’s more worrying is the bias in policy towards those with more money, power or both. Typically, by the time public policy emerges from drawing board to final design, political and business influences shape its biases.

It is instructive to note the role of politicians in plutocracy. The Supreme Court recently upbraided the Centre for the rapid—and, in some cases, inexplicable—rise in politicians’ assets. Interestingly, when one of their own was banned from flying for perpetrating violence against airline staffers, parliamentarians banded together to get him a reprieve. 

On the rebound, though, the aviation ministry has now empowered airlines to unilaterally ban “unruly” passengers, without offering citizens any means of contesting the one-sided rule. The odds are always stacked against ordinary citizens in a plutocracy.

The above article was originally published in Mint newspaper and can also be read here.