Is the ‘Modi Premium’ Wearing Off in the Stock Markets?

As Modi completes one year in office, a sense of despondency pervades the customary reviews that ritually accompany such an event. Rumblings of discontent have emerged from various stakeholders and stock markets have taken the lead in signalling disappointment with his performance.

As Prime Minister Narendra Modi completes one year in office, a sense of despondency pervades the customary reviews that ritually accompany such an event. Rumblings of discontent have emerged from various stakeholders, including Corporate India. But it is the stock markets that seem to have taken the lead in signalling disappointment with his performance.

The bellwether index S&P BSE Sensex, comprising 30 stocks, has witnessed a major erosion in values over the past few weeks. From its all-time peak of 29,681.77 points achieved on January 29, 2015, the Sensex hit a low of 26,599.11 on May 7: a sharp drop of 3082.66 points (or 10.38%) in slightly over three months.

The capital market’s rebuff is symbolic: it tries to aggregate what’s going on in different parts of the economy and transmits its sentiment through one single number. And going by its recent behaviour, there seems to be plenty that is wrong, or perceived to be wrong.

Foreign portfolio investors, an influential investor segment in the capital markets, are a visibly disgruntled lot and they have been letting off steam by selling en masse. In the first 10 trading days in May (till May 18), FPIs were net sellers to the extent of $2.306 billion. FPIs enjoy disproportionate influence over Indian capital markets, primarily because they bring larger volumes to bear than domestic institutions. Low retail participation in the capital markets — either directly or indirectly — also keeps Indian markets shallow.

Tax uncertainties

These FPIs decided to head for the exit because of continuing tax uncertainty. Finance minister Arun Jaitley’s 2015-16 Budget had unequivocally clarified that tax will not be levied on the capital gains of FPIs in the current year. But, unfortunately, there was no assurance that past cases won’t be re-assessed. And, true to form, tax authorities sent notices to various FPIs to pay up for past gains. That precipitated widespread resentment, with some FPIs even going to court and, of course, venting their spleen by selling Indian stocks.

The minister, presumably rattled by the exodus and the bad publicity all this was generating, has gone out of his way to placate FPIs. Apart from putting all reviews and fresh cases on hold, he resorted to the time-tested stalling tactic: he appointed a committee. In effect, he has kicked the can down the road and bought some time. This incident also illustrates how FPIs have emerged as a crucial constituency, with an uneven share-of-voice.

Unsatisfactory corporate results is the other reason why Sensex is volatile. Many companies — especially in the mid-cap segment — have reported disappointing results for 2014-15, signifying that demand for goods and services continues to remain weak. A report in Mint has highlighted how Q4FY15 sales of 142 companies included in BSE-500 (and for which results were available) has grown at the slowest pace in 16 quarters since Q1FY11.

This is evidence that the economy is still far from recovery. The Index for Industrial Production has grown by only 2.8% during 2014-15. Consumer durables manufacturing contracted by 12.5% during the year, compared with 2013-14, signifying the lack of purchasing power in the economy.

Matters have been made worse by the unseasonal rain in many parts of the country this year, destroying hectares of standing crop, which typically comes to the farm markets in April. This is likely to further dampen demand for consumer goods in the rural areas. The stock markets are also trying to capture this trend.

Oil prices fall opportunity lost

One can argue that this is sheer bad luck and the government cannot be held responsible for this catastrophe. While that is true, it is also a fact that the government didn’t rush to reap the dividends of fortuitously low oil prices when it came to power. Since then oil prices have climbed 50%, spooked by the continuing West Asian crisis and some shale oil wells in USA shutting down.

There could be another charitable explanation for the unusually turbulent Sensex: that expectations from PM Modi might have raced way ahead of reality, especially after the depressing paralysis that gripped the economy in UPA-II’s second term. The common beef (pun intended) is that even the current BJP-led government has plumped for incrementalism, rather than bold policy measures they had promised.

There are two sides to this debate and both can be deemed valid. But, what is undeniably true is that the stock market has already started discounting PM Modi’s premium, even before he completes a full year in office. And, though the Sensex is still up 14.78% from where it was a year ago — it closed at 27,687 on May 18, 2015, compared with 24,121.74 on May 16, 2014 — it seems that market participants have already watered down their expectations and moderated their hopes about a magical, almost fantastical, turn-around in the economy.

Courtesy:

Published first in The Wire (http://thewire.in/2015/05/19/is-the-modi-premium-wearing-off-in-the-stock-markets/) on May 19,

and then subsequently reprinted in 

Gateway House (http://www.gatewayhouse.in/is-the-modi-premium-wearing-off-in-the-stock-markets/) on same day.

Geopolitics & Byomkesh Bakshi

Novelist Sharadindu Bandopadhyay created fictional detective Byomkesh Bakshi in exciting geo-political times, in Calcutta, then an interesting global city. The movie Detective Byomkesh Bakshi , directed by Dibakar Banerjee, tries to capture some of these fragments

Dibakar Banerjee’s film, Detective Byomkesh Bakshi, has split passions down the middle. But, this whodunnit is remarkable for other reasons: its desire to locate the story in turbulent geopolitical times and its portrayal of murky corridors of contraband trade.

The movie—apart from multiple directorial mis-steps (such as, an inability to re-imagine Calcutta’s streets of yore)—is a bit like a smouldering pot, blending not only interesting and menacing geopolitical fragments of those fraught times but also flavouring the brew with dark hints of suspicion targeted at the city’s Chinese and Japanese citizens.

The film is set in the Calcutta of 1942. The city was then a hub for the Allied forces, an oasis of rest and recreation for the battle-weary soldiers of World War II. The British naval forces were in retreat from the Indian Ocean theatre of war, pounded by a stronger Japanese fleet. As Emperor Hirohito’s Imperial forces marched across the Asian continent, having already captured strategic staging posts — such as, Penang, Singapore, Burma and Port Blair in Andaman Islands — the next logical stop was Calcutta. Japanese planes rained bombs on the city in 1942 (and also in 1944).

Here was a city occupied by foreigners and under attack from another set of foreigners. It was in pause mode, just months before the Allied forces would launch a massive counter-offensive in South-east Asia, under the command of Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten. Intrigue, conspiracy, suspicion, black-market dealings were the daily norm. Throw in a couple of murders and a cross-border blood trail, and then detective-fiction meets geopolitics. Add to the mix opium smuggling to Shanghai and the setting for a noir narrative is complete. Into this combat zone, Dibakar Banerjee parachutes fictional detective Byomkesh Bakshi.

The director has simply followed the script. Writer Sharadindu Bandopadhyay had sired detective Byomkesh Bakshi in cosmopolitan Calcutta (the first story was published in 1924), a city at the crossroads of Asian commerce and trade, an entrepot brimming with Anglo-Indians, Chinese, Jews, Armenians, Muslims and Parsis, in addition to the Hindus. A riverine port—the country’s oldest operating port—barely 200km from the sea, Japanese bombers repeatedly tried to undermine Calcutta’s geostrategic position.

Sharadindu styled Byomkesh as a dilettante, an amateur sleuth, perhaps fashioned loosely on Dorothy Sayers’s creation Lord Peter Wimsey. But, more than a detective, he is a satyanveshi (truth-seeker) and pursues leads, clues and hunches with dogged determination, without regard for remuneration or recompense. His reward is solving the crime and apprehending the guilty; and earning a bit of fame (or perhaps notoriety) in the process is always welcome.

Byomkesh is astute, well-read and able to connect multiple dots. He untangles a sordid skein of seemingly disparate events—the murder and mysterious return of an opium smuggling kingpin, a disrupted Calcutta-Shanghai opium supply chain, crepuscular Chinese denizens moving in the shadows of legendary Tiretta Bazaar, the disappearance and murder of an innovative Bengali chemist, a coquettish Bengali-Burmese seductress floating ethereally in a silk-brocade cheongsam, the furtive goings-ons at a Japanese dentist’s clinic, the deathly pall of bombings hanging over a fetid Calcutta skyline, a British police commissioner concerned with a missing opium consignment.

In his books and stories on Byomkesh, Sharadindu was able to depict Calcutta as a modern city, where education, commerce, arts, literature, culture and religion thrived together. The Calcutta of 1942 — as represented by either Sharadindu in his books or by Dibakar Banerjee’s movie — is doubly likeable because of the stark contrast with present-day conditions. Today’s charged atmosphere of bigotry stands in sharp relief to that nonchalant air of tolerance, that comfortable sense of cosmopolitanism that has long been eroded by the steady flight of citizens, its culture of wide scholarship replaced by rote learning. Calcutta Port—renamed Kolkata Port Trust in recent years—is now encumbered by tonnes of silt brought in by the river from upstream and plays host to only lighter and smaller vessels,.

Sharadindu’s rendering of Calcutta as a global city will, sadly, remain encapsulated only in memories. That’s probably true of many other Indian cities.

Public Procurement: Policy Must Precede Law

Pressure for a unified public procurement framework is mounting on India from both within the country and internationally. While an integrated procurement structure is necessary, a broad policy architecture must precede the framing of any legislation

As India prepares to convert some of its free trade agreements into larger comprehensive agreements, it will have to re-examine some existing domestic rules and convert other rules into legislations. And in some cases, such as procurement by the government, it will have to first frame guiding principles that are aligned with global norms.

Comprehensive agreements usually include, apart from export and import rules, treaties on investment, intellectual property rights, and public procurement. All comprehensive agreements, and some bilateral investment treaties, demand that public procurement treat all vendors—foreign or domestic—equally. In keeping with these norms, India too will have to design a globally-aligned public procurement framework that is fair and equitable.

The Indian government’s annual procurement bill is enormous. If purchases by the Centre, states, local bodies, public sector organisations, and the armed forces are consolidated, various estimates put the total bill anywhere between 25% and 30% of the country’s GDP, amounting to over $600 billion. [1]

Despite this colossal bill, India does not have an over-arching policy to guide public procurement.

In theory, all public procurement is guided by General Financial Rules (1963) and Delegation of Financial Powers Rules of 1978, both framed (and occasionally updated) by the Ministry of Finance. [2, 3] The ministry has also published a manual called “Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Goods”. [4] On top of that, the centralised purchase department of the central government—the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals—issues its own guidelines. Many ministries often tweak these rules, with government agencies developing their own rules, and framing model tender documents.

Defence procurement, on the other hand, is covered by a unique set of policies and procedures formulated by the National Security System, and the decisions are made by the Defence Acquisition Council. In addition, many states have legislated their own procurement Bills—for example, the Tamil Nadu Public Procurement Act, the Karnataka Public Procurement Act, and the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act.

Given this wide variation in procurement rules within the government, regulation and supervision are casualties. While the Central Vigilance Commission provides supplementary regulations and oversight, with additional supervision by the Comptroller and Auditor General, there is no central authority that monitors public procurement to ensure compliance with existing rules.

A series of scandals—coupled with mounting pressure from international allies, trade partners, and multilateral organisations—forced the UPA-II government to draft a Public Procurement Bill in 2012. But that didn’t go anywhere, and the new government is now trying to resuscitate the Bill. The finance ministry has invited comments on the draft of the existing Bill. [5]

However, there is a problem with drafting legislation before articulating guiding principles, or a strategy architecture, or even a white paper. Such a model document can provide directional guidance to the Bill, and not vice-versa. Also, guiding principles enjoy greater longevity, which when incorporated into legislation, saves it from frequent, time-consuming amendments.

Tactically, such a document will help resolve numerous pending or unresolved policy-related issues in public procurement that a Bill cannot incorporate.

For starters, the proposed Bill applies to only procurement by the central government and its various organisations. Given the growing procurement costs of states and local bodies (such as municipal corporations or panchayats), this Bill then serves only a limited purpose. Any regulatory oversight over purchases by states and local bodies would need to be balanced with the tenets of federalism.

This can be debated in the guiding principles and an alternative solutions framework can be constructed. For instance, it might be instructive to integrate all public procurement—at whatever level—with the proposed technology backbone for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. Aligning procurements with the GST backbone will also allow for fair comparisons between the pricing of similar goods and services procured elsewhere by private or public entities, thereby imparting transparency and accountability. This will then reduce divergence without the need to legislate a central bill.

Second, governments worldwide use public procurement strategically to drive their socio-economic agendas. In India, there is a 20% mandatory carve-out for the micro, small medium enterprises (MSME) segment. [6] This will raise questions about other exemptions, such as a legitimate gender-based quota—should it be part of the 20% or does it deserves separate reservation? With gender budgeting now well established, gender-based public procurement has the opportunity to improve female entrepreneurship, employment, and incomes. [7]

A reservation—known as offsets—has also been included in defence FDI to supplement the ‘Make in India’ programme, under which foreign companies manufacturing in India must source 30% of goods and services from local companies. Even the FDI policy on single brand retail mandates such a requirement. These exceptions might face opposition in comprehensive agreement negotiations. This reinforces the need for a national policy debate, and a broad strategy, which re-examines the extent of exemptions that can be allowed.

Any strategy’s most significant thrust will be in the geoeconomic sphere. For instance, India will probably want to exempt government’s procurement of foodgrains from Indian farmers from any comprehensive negotiations, at least till the Doha Round of discussions under the World Trade Organisation are concluded, or till the outdated WTO formula on agriculture support is overhauled.

Importantly, India also needs a strategy to gain greater market access for services in overseas markets, in exchange for a liberal, domestic public procurement policy in manufactured goods. Public procurement of services in most countries is restricted to citizens of a country, or a particular bloc (like Europe). India should leverage the growing clamour for access to its procurement market by seeking reciprocal access for its services.

This is a plan of action that cannot be included in a Bill, but needs to be outlined in a strategy document.

References

[1] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, India: Probity in Public Procurement,

<http://www.unodc.org/documents/southasia/publications/research-studies/India-PPPs.pdf>

[2] Ministry of Finance, Government of India, General Financial Rules, <http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/GFRS/index.asp>

[3] Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Delegation of Financial Power Rules, <http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/notification/dfpower/Purchase%20I.pdf>

[4] Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Policies and Procedures for Purchase of Goods, <http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/acts_codes/MPProc4ProGod.pdf>

[5] Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Notice: Public Procurement Bill, 6 April 2015, <http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_expenditure/ppcell/PPDNotice180315.pdf>

[6] Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, Public Procurement Policy Notification, <http://dcmsme.gov.in/notification.pdf>

[7] Kirton, Raymond Mark, Gender, Trade and Public Procurement Policy: Kenya, India, Australia, Jamaica. The Commonwealth, 2012, <http://assets.thecommonwealth.org/assetbank-commonwealth/action/viewAsset?id=22979&index=0&total=36&view=viewSearchItem#imageModal>

Do Trade Targets Work?

India has used two-way trade targets as a proxy for judging the temperature of its key bilateral and plurilateral relationships. But a deeper understanding is needed of the extent to which physical targets can help accomplish qualitative objectives

The government of India’s new Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for 2015-2020 has set a $900-billion goods and services export target, to be achieved by 2020. Compared with the $465.9 billion achieved during 2013-14, the target is almost double of current levels.

The policy document prefaces the target with a rare pithy statement: “A vision is best achieved through measurable targets.”[1] But the fact is, most of India’s key diplomatic engagements—at bilateral, plurilateral, or even multilateral levels—are defined by targets.

Targets are ubiquitous in India’s economic diplomacy. There are many ways to judge the breadth and depth of a relationship between two countries, including cultural exchanges, defence cooperation, people-to-people interaction, and historical ties. But trade and investment targets lay out vector paths for future growth, and set concrete milestones against which progress can be gauged.

The target-driven approach is now spreading to bilateral ties with even smaller nations; for example, India and Vietnam recently agreed to a trade target of $15 billion, to be met by 2020. [2]

But targets are essentially cut-and-dry, and temporal. There is no definitive research showing whether targets have succeeded in imparting additional meaning to an existing relationship, or whether they have been effective in bringing two disparate nation-states closer. In other words, there’s no conclusive evidence showing that quantifiable bounds improve the qualitative facet of an engagement.

India’s Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with ASEAN is a good example. It has been a source of anxiety within government and key stakeholders. India signed the FTA for goods in 2009, but the one on services and investment—arguably India’s strong point—is yet to come into force. Even in the goods trade, India suffers a chronic trade deficit with ASEAN: it imports more than it exports.

In the face of this, the target for India-ASEAN bilateral trade—$100 billion by 2015—looks unattainable, especially since two-way trade (exports plus imports) between the two regions amounted to only $70.5 billion during April-February 2014-15. [3]

Confronted by this glacial pace of trade growth, India has done the next best thing: it has stretched out both the physical target as well the end-date. The India-ASEAN relationship will now be measured by a new target without having to necessarily address performance vis-a-vis the earlier target. External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj announced the new target at the inaugural session of Delhi Dialogue VII on March 11: “However, we need to make a special effort to achieve our target of enhancing trade to $100 billion by 2015, and our aspiration is to double it to $200 billion by 2022.” [4]

India has recast other targets in other strategic relationships as well. During Prime Minister Narendra Modi first state visit to the U.S. in September 2014, the joint statement he issued with President Barack Obama stated: “Noting that two-way trade has increased five-fold since 2001 to nearly $100 billion, President Obama and Prime Minister Modi committed to facilitate the actions necessary to increase trade another five-fold.” [5] In other words, to take trade to $500 billion, though the statement refrained from mentioning a target year.

In the other strategic relation with neighbour China, there is some clarity of objectives on both investments and trade. A joint statement issued by Modi and President Xi Jinping in September 2014 announced: “The Chinese side would also endeavour to realise an investment of $20 billion in India in the next 5 years in various industrial and infrastructure development projects”. [6] During the same trip, a five-year Trade and Economic Development Plan signed between the two countries has, among other targets, an unquantified over-riding objective: reduce the trade imbalance India suffers in its $65-billion bilateral trade with China. [7]

Even with Africa, the $90-billion target set for 2015 is likely to be missed. [8] It is also quite likely that the target will be bumped up—both the volume as well the year. This might be announced at the Third India-Africa Summit scheduled for October 2015.

When the foreign trade and investment landscape is suffused with a surfeit of targets, the logical questions are: How are targets fixed? What is the strategy for meeting them? No one knows the answers.

For one, there is no clarity on who should set and announce targets—the commerce ministry or the external affairs ministry? While think tanks and academic experts are known to have been engaged by both ministries to finalise targets, the research output is not available to civil society, either for viewing or for providing inputs. Inviting public comments before finalising targets, or even to assess the methodology used, can probably infuse some realism into these exercises.

Second, once the targets are announced, there is no detailed analysis of how these will be met, and no outlining of strategy, at least not in the public domain.

Finally, this year’s Foreign Trade Policy also raises a crucial issue that has bedevilled India’s trade practices: the lack of coordination between different economic agents as well as ministries operating in silo-like structures. But then the policy stops short of mentioning how “Make in India” or “Digital India” or even the policy on smart cities can be integrated with the FTP to deliver higher exports of both goods and services. That remains the biggest challenge for India’s trade regime.

References


[1] Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India; Foreign Trade Policy Statement, <http://dgft.gov.in/exim/2000/FTPstatement2015.pdf>, p.14

[2] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Joint Statement by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung,28 October 2014, <http://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/24143/Media+Statements+by+Prime+Minister+of+India+and+Prime+Minister+of+Vietnam+in+New+Delhi+October+28+2014>

[3] Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Trade Statistics, <http://commerce.nic.in/ftpa/cntq.asp>

[4] Swaraj, Sushma, Keynote Address at Inaugural Session of Delhi Dialogue VII,Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, 11 March 2015,

<http://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/24899/Keynote_Address_by_External_Affairs_Minister_at_the_Inaugural_Session_of_Delhi_Dialogue_VII_New_Delhi>

[5] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Joint statement by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi & U.S.A. President Barack Obama, 30 September 2014,

<http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/24051/Joint_Statement_during_the_visit_of_Prime_Minister_to_USA>

[6] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Joint Statement between the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China on Building a Closer Developmental Partnership, 19 September 2014,

<http://www.mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htmdtl/24022/Joint_Statement_between_the_Republic_of_India_and_the_Peoples_Republic_of_China_on_Building_a_Closer_Developmental_Partnership>

[7] Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, List of Documents signed during the State Visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to India, 18 September 2014, <http://www.mea.gov.in/incoming-visit-detail.htm?24012/List+of+Documents+signed+during+the+State+Visit+of+Chinese+President+Xi+Jinping+to+India>

[8] Singhal, Rajrishi; Indian Banks in Africa: Change Agents; Policy Perspective No 8, Gateway House: Indian Counmcil on Global Relations, 9 January 2015, 

<http://www.gatewayhouse.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Policy-Perspective_Economic-diplomacy-with-Africa.pdf>

Incredibly Indian, or the Travesty of Taj Tourism

The Taj Mahal is unarguably India's finest monument. It's a lover's dirge for his late beloved, set in timeless metre and rhythm. It's a lament in marble, a paean to love, that leaves visitors awestruck and enchanted.

It's, therefore, equally painful when the custodians of this great monument are callous and corrupt. A visit to the Taj is meant to be a homage to beauty, love, devotion. Instead, many visitors have come back angry and frustrated.

Arundhuti Dasgupta Singhal has written in Business Standard on the shameful appropriation of Taj Tourism by touts and how officials are aiding and abetting this. It's titled Incredibly Indian: How Taj Mahal Tourism Has Turned Into Harassment:

http://goo.gl/kUF7Hf

A snatch of a sentence from the above blog highlights the plight of ordinary tourists: "Feeling harassed, helpless and angry at the manner in which we have been dragged into a chain of unofficial payments and pay-offs..."

     

IMF And RBI — Lost In Transmission

The IMF’s 2014 review has some good GDP news but its reservations on interest rates bears closer attention. It can take 32 months for the effects of a an interest rate cut to be felt. What does this mean for the Indian economy?

Christine Lagarde International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director was in India on 16 March for a two-day trip following the 11 March release of the IMF’s 2014 annual review of the Indian economy. The review has some good GDP news for India. Predictably, everybody focused mostly on the growth forecast for 2014-15 and for 2015-16 and (expectedly) missed out IMF’s reservations on a key ingredient that facilitates growth in any economy — interest rates.

There’s a bit of a story behind the IMF’s salubrious growth forecast. The original set of two IMF documents (in which Indian GDP was initially estimated to grow by 6.3% in 2014-15 and by 6.5% in 2015-16) had to be supplemented by two additional reports — one a transcript of the discussion between IMF officials and media, and, two, a copy of the IMF Survey which updated India’s growth forecast, in line with the government’s new methodology. Consequently, IMF now expects India’s GDP to grow by 7.2% during fiscal 2014-15 and by 7.5% during 2015-16.

Growth junkies celebrated this international endorsement for India’s growth prospects. They have been hankering for a rate cut, arguing that the only thing standing between them and double-digit annual growth rates were intractably high interest rates. The Reserve Bank (RBI) has rewarded them with two rate cuts — one in January and another in early March, soon after announcement of Budget. There are now demands for more, and deeper, rate cuts.

But, if they had read the IMF report a bit more closely, they might have been disappointed. The source of frustration is an accompanying document released with the India country report — called Selected Issues (as background documentation) — which includes a chapter on monetary transmission. On the basis of an internal model, this document reckons that the two-stage transmission between a repo rate cut to bank lending rate cut, via the weighted average call money rate, takes a total of 32 months. The impact on deposit rates is faster at 23 months.

Translated, that means RBI’s repo rate cut in January 2015 is likely to result in lower bank lending rates only by September 2017. The final impact on economic output and price levels, and hence growth impetus, will take even longer to feed through the relevant economic linkages. While that does seem a bit extreme, there is no denying that there is a large, looming problem in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge: transmission problems, or crimps in the financial pipeline.

RBI’s rate actions tend to take ages to travel through the economic system before they translate into lower borrowing rates for firms and households at the other end. In short, the transmission time between RBI’s rate action and banks cutting their lending rates is inordinately long, fraught with uncertainties and resistant to any mapping or measurement. Hence, nobody knows — with any modicum of certainty — how exactly this decision travels through the system, or how long this entire process will take.

The IMF report also refutes RBI’s estimates regarding transmission time, as well as dents the central bank’s confidence of improving lags and lead times under the new monetary arrangement it has signed with the Centre. The Urjit Patel Committee had mentioned that “…monetary policy in India impacts output with a lag of about 2-3 quarters and WPI headline inflation with a lag of about 3-4 quarters and the impact persists for 8-12 quarters.”

RBI has on numerous occasions — through working papers, speeches, media interactions and committee reports — acknowledged the problem of transmission leads and lags in India’s monetary policy. Most reports agree that transmission in India works through a number of channels — interest rate, credit markets, foreign exchange rates, asset prices (such as equity or house prices), expectations (about future shocks and belief in central bank ability to counter adversity) — with the existing fiscal and monetary system acting as final arbiters of the speed of transmission.

In each of the channels mentioned above, there are speed-breakers that slow down the pace of transmission. In the interest rate channel, for example, the existence of a large informal sector with largely inelastic borrowing rates, or high interest rates charged in the microfinance sector, impede transmission of rate cuts to output and inflation. Take government borrowing. Not only does it artificially dampen interest rates, it also forcibly appropriates a fixed amount of the banking system’s lendable funds, providing banks with a disincentive to heed market signals. This is one of the things that make it difficult for an RBI repo cut to materialise as a bank lending rate cut.

The Indian financial sector is dominated by banks, with public sector bank providing the bulk of banking services. The unusually large presence of state-owned banks

Hence, in the face of the conflicting transmission time periods provided by IMF and RBI, as well as the existence of innumerable structural road bumps that hinder smooth diffusion of monetary policy, there are legitimate questions about the efficacy of the monetary policy arrangement between RBI and the government.

Kind courtesy Gateway House (here) and Hindu BusinessLine (here)

A Sharing of Instruments

RBI’s new brief to curb inflation comes with a cut in its independence

Like many other things, the Reserve Bank of India has come late to the party. And it has celebrated with a rate cut. Announced on Wednesday morning, outside its usual, scheduled policy review cycle, the RBI cut the benchmark rate by 25 basis points. This is questionable.

What’s curious is the timing: it seems to indicate that the RBI is returning a favour to the government for having signed the monetary policy framework agreement. Signed between the RBI and the Union finance ministry on February 20, it enjoins the RBI to bring inflation—as measured by consumer price index (CPI)—below 6 per cent by January 2016, and thereafter strive to keep it at 4 per cent (with an error margin of plus/minus 2 per cent). Any deviation will be considered a failing, requiring an explana­tion.

The monetary policy framework with a single nominal anchor was recommended by an RBI-constituted expert committee and chaired by RBI deputy governor Urjit Patel. The choice of CPI (combined) as nominal anchor is also in keeping with similar recommendations made by earlier committees, such as the Raghuram Rajan committee and the Percy Mistry committee. It would thus seem that a chorus of orchestrated voices, seemingly with an aligned ideological perspective, has managed to refashion the RBI’s role and purpose.

What is disquieting is the way it tilts at independent monetary policy. The decision also comes at a time when there is an attempt to steadily erode the RBI’s independence (however limited), either through curtailing its powers or through unilateral transfer to the executive, as evident in this budget.

The first is a move to amend Section 6 of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), which empowers the RBI to control foreign exchange flows. Arun Jaitley stated in his budget speech: “Capital account controls is a policy, rather than a regulatory, matter. I, therefore, propose to amend, through the Finance Bill, Section-6 of FEMA to clearly provide that control on capital flows as equity will be exercised by the government, in consultation with the RBI.” The immediate provocation for this is believed to be an embittered separation process between a leading Indian conglomerate and a foreign telco; to make matters worse, RBI rules on put options in share agreements delayed a settlement. Eventually, though, the RBI is believed to have made exceptions to its rules for this deal.

The second is the setting up of a public debt management agency “which will bring both India’s external borrowings and domestic debt under one roof”, which are all under the RBI’s watch currently. There is also no clarity on the nature of the agency—will it be independent, will it be under the finance ministry or quasi-autonomous? This clarification is necessary because a debt management agency should be in a position to either influence interest rates or take the punch-bowl away in times of excessive fiscal expansion.

In the aftermath of the RBI’s war-mode attack on inflation and inflationary expectations, influential voices have been demanding that its powers be curtailed or stripped. Many blamed the RBI, wrongly of course, for the current economic slowdown. This is not peculiar to India. With a prolonged global slowdown prompting countries to elect conservative candidates, central banks have felt the heat in Israel, Japan and Hungary.

The decision to forge a new monetary policy agreement, especially when aca­d­emics are questioning inflation targeting, has some unexplained areas. First, the RBI has no control over half the constituents in the rebased CPI index (food or fuel items), so this raises questions about influence monetary policy action can have on price behaviour. Second, the RBI has complained in the past about the quality of data collection and analysis, but is willing to submit itself to be judged by the same touchstone. Three, there is an undeniable, but com­­plicated relationship between employment and inflation. The latest economic survey highlights the dis­tortions in une­mployment data; this compact is then bui­lding a framework using the bedrock of two publicly ackn­owledged noisy databases. Four, the transmission route and the time-lag bet­ween monetary policy action and its impact on the price line is unclear; the RBI’s brave promise the­refore to hold down the price line to a specific number using monetary policy is surprising.

The final picture will emerge when monetary policy committee members are selected. One hopes they will be independent professionals, selected not for their political beliefs but their understanding of monetary economics. Finally, one also hopes that the RBI governor will get to have the last word on that committee.

Reprinted with permission from Outlook Magazine: 

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/A-Sharing-Of-Instruments/293613

and, 
Gateway House: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/a-sharing-of-instruments-2/

Budget 2015: No Heed to Economic Diplomacy

Finance minister Arun Jaitley’s 2015-16 Budget resonates only partially with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s arc of economic diplomacy; it lacks strategic intent that could invest India with some geo-strategic heft in the years to come

Soon after he was sworn in as Prime Minister, Narendra Modi invested India’s languishing economic diplomacy with a renewed energy. It was therefore widely expected that Budget-2015 would achieve strategic convergence with Modi’s vision of using economics to drive India’s foreign policy. But the Budget seems to have achieved that only partially.

Economic diplomacy has a two-pronged role in the Indian economy. One, to open up markets for Indian goods, services and investments, with special emphasis on widening and deepening India’s footprint in neighbouring countries and newer markets like Africa and Latin America. Two, Modi’s whirlwind foreign engagements in the first eight months of his premiership were also focused on attracting foreign inward investments — from governments as well as the private sector — to further invigorate his “Make In India” programme.

On the first count, the Budget is conspicuously silent. It is on the second that the Budget holds out some hope.

The silence in the first instance is surprising. With the U.S., European and Japanese economies — which have also been India’s traditional export markets — still struggling to break out of a low-growth trap, it is imperative for India to create a beach-head in newer markets for its goods, services and investments. Post 2008, India was forced to look to Africa and Latin America to maintain export buoyancy. But, both continents together account for a paltry 15% of India’s total exports and there is nothing strategic in this Budget that indicates a desire to achieve higher numbers.

Modi’s foreign policy priorities have also included a renewed thrust on India’s immediate neighbourhood — countries in both the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Barring the announcement of a project development company to help facilitate Indian private sector investments in Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam (CMLV), the Budget is bereft of any meaningful strategy. For example, there is no mention of, or funding allocated to, linking India’s North East to ASEAN through an all-weather transport corridor, an issue that has been discussed and accepted. Even with CMLV, there is no clarity on the investment-absorbing capacity of the individual countries or the kind of sectors Indian companies can focus on [1].

The Budget’s commitment to economic diplomacy is also reflected in money kept aside for various ministries. Budget allocation for 2015-16 under the head “Technical & Economic Cooperation with Other Countries and Advances to Foreign Governments” in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) [2] is up by 25.88%. But when compared with the original budget estimate, the allocation is actually down by about 3.5%. Worse, the budgetary outlay for the Department of Commerce in the Ministry for Commerce and Industry (the bulk of which is earmarked for foreign trade and export promotion) for 2015-16 is lower than both the revised and budget estimates for 2014-15. [3]

Another missed opportunity is the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) programme, a key instrument of India’s development diplomacy which is administered by MEA. Despite its popularity, it’s allocation at Rs 180 crore for 2015-16 is just 16% higher than the actual expenditure last year. 

An argument can be made that given the shrinking fiscal space for the Centre, and the pressure to kickstart growth impulses through public spending, little is left to spare for economic diplomacy. However, that logic is self-defeating because the gains to economy — both in terms of growth and revenue — from accelerated geo-economic strategies is well known.

What makes these lapses doubly alarming is the grim future scenario for India’s trade regime outlined in the Economic Survey, which was released by Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Subramanian only a day before the Budget announcement. [4]

The survey singles out three main challenges: the phenomenon of unbundled and geographically dispersed global value-added manufacturing chains into which India has integrated slowly, the imminent rise of two large trade blocs (Trans-Pacific Partnership with Asia and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Europe) which will cover half the world’s trade and China’s emergence as a major voice in trade negotiations. India, says Subramanian, has only two choices: measured integration (an euphemism for status quo) or ambitious integration, which will require India joining the TTP (currently a remote possibility). The flip sides to both options are that measured integration will leave Indian exports isolated, while joining the TTP will require substantial liberalisation which may be out of alignment with domestic level reforms.

As China did during its entry to the WTO in 2001, India can forcefully dovetail the domestic reforms agenda to an external priority. But the country’s competitive democratic politics and the presence of varied interest groups makes that task exceedingly difficult.

Gateway House has been advocating a greater impetus towards improving India’s relationships with neighbours in SAARC and ASEAN, through a strategy of Corridors of Development and Circles of Influence, as a means of achieving some geo-strategic primacy in the coming years. [5] [6] This Budget could have begun that journey.

But, to be fair, finance minister Arun Jaitley has introduced many measures to attract fresh investment into manufacturing and services. These moves may not be headline-grabbing, but are a nuts-and-bolts policy framework: they seek to improve the ground conditions for attracting investments, facilitate efficient use of financing, eliminate legal obstacles that inevitably lead to disputes and prolonged legal battles, simplify processes and stabilise the tax regime. There seems to be a realisation in the Budget, as well as in the Railway Budget of February 26, that investors — whether domestic or foreign — are unlikely to part with their money unless the ground conditions are improved substantially.

The specific measures introduced by Jaitley – heeding the advice of the Economic Survey – include eliminating distinctions between different categories of foreign investors, one-source clearance for regulatory approvals, easier dispute settlement mechanisms, broadening scope of investment vehicles for foreign capital, providing tax clarity and stability. [7]

Hopefully, the oversight in providing the Budget with a strategic edge through geo-economics will be corrected in the quinquennial Trade Policy 2014-2019, which is already delayed and is likely to be announced soon by Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

REFERENCES:

[1] Mathur, Akshay; Policy Catalyst: Seven Sisters’ Corridor; 30 May, 2014; Gateway House; http://www.gatewayhouse.in/policy-catalyst-seven-sisters-corridor/

[2] Notes of Demands for Grants 2015-16; Demand No 33, Ministry of External Affairs; Expenditure Budget, Vol II; http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2015-16/eb/sbe33.pdf

[3] Notes for Demands for Grants 2015-16; Demand No 12, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry; Expenditure Budget Vol II; http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2015-16/eb/sbe12.pdf

[4] Economic Survey 2014-15; Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India; February 27, 2015; http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2014-15/echapvol1-01.pdf (Page 37)

[5] Kripalani, Manjeet; Circles & Corridors of Economic Diplomacy; 18 April 2014; Gateway House; http://www.gatewayhouse.in/circles-corridors-of-economic-diplomacy/

[6] Gateway House Fellows; India’s foreign policy priorities 2015; 1 January 2015; Gateway House; http://www.gatewayhouse.in/indias-foreign-policy-priorities-2015/

[7] Jaitley, Arun; Minister of Finance, Government of india; Speech to Parliament while presenting Budget 2015-16; 28 February 2015;http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2015-16/bs/bs.pdf

© Copyright 2014 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Reprinted with permission from Gateway House: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/budget-2015-no-heed-to-economic-diplomacy/

and

Quartz India: http://qz.com/354516/another-area-where-modis-budget-disappointed-economic-diplomacy/

A Tobin Tax For India

In its recent monetary policy document, the Reserve Bank of India has imposed strict maturity conditions on foreign portfolio investment in debt to get a better handle on risk. But a fiscal solution would be more elegant and effective

The nervousness is back, and so are direct physical controls. In an otherwise staid monetary policy document released on 3 February 2015, Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan has inserted one small restriction: henceforth all foreign portfolio investors investing in debt instruments—issued by government or private sector companies—have to hold on to their investments for a minimum of three years.

The policy decision is a discreet admission of the risks confronting the Indian economy, as well as a hint of the Indian central bank’s anxieties.

But imposing administrative controls in this day and age—even if they are meant to mitigate risks—sends wrong signals, especially when alternative fiscal instruments are available to achieve the same results. Even the European Union has agreed to implement such a measure despite stiff opposition from Britain and Sweden: the magic bullet is called a Tobin tax.

India must also consider introducing such a tax With Finance Minister Arun Jaitley searching for newer sources of revenue, Budget 2015-16 (to be announced on February 28) will be the right vehicle for announcing this levy.

Named after American economist and Nobel laureate James Tobin, the tax is levied on financial transactions and is aimed at curbing speculation and volatility. Although the tax was originally proposed by Tobin in the 1970s for a post-Bretton Woods global financial system—to curb short-term currency speculation and its attendant risks to the economy (through high interest rates)—over time it has come to denote taxes on all kinds of financial transactions, with each country re-interpreting the concept in its own unique manner. For example, Italy imposed a variation of the tax on high frequency share trading in September 2013—a 0.02% tax on trades occurring every 0.5 seconds or faster. [1]

After years of discussions and dissent, 11 European countries—Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia—have also decided to introduce a financial transactions tax from 1 January 2016. [2] Under the finalised proposal, the 11 countries will impose a 0.1% levy on exchange of shares and bonds, and a 0.01% impost on derivative transactions.

However, Britain and Sweden have already voiced their dissent to the proposal and are likely to oppose its enactment. It is also not known whether Italy will continue with the tax on high-frequency trading after 2016.

The Tobin tax approach has been tried in other countries as well—such as Thailand, Brazil, Chile, and Malaysia—with mixed results. However, in Brazil and Malaysia (and, to some extent, in Chile) the tax is said to have achieved the desired results of curbing volatile short-term currency flows.

India already has a form of Tobin tax in place—the Securities Transaction Tax (STT). Introduced in 2004, the STT is levied on every transaction of securities listed on the stock exchanges and mutual funds. According to Budget documents, the STT helped net Rs. 5,497 crores revenue for the government during 2013-14. [3] The estimate for 2014-15 is Rs. 5,991 crores.

A Tobin tax could be levied on foreign portfolio investors who decide to cash out their investments in Indian bonds before a certain period. This has dual benefits—the investments stay for a longer and predictable period (thereby insulating the economy from egregious volatility), and earn additional revenue for the government as well.

This might be much more elegant than what the RBI is proposing. The RBI monetary policy document states: “…it is decided in consultation with Government that all future investment by FPIs in the debt market in India will be required to be made with a minimum residual maturity of three years. Accordingly, all future investments within the limit for investment in corporate bonds, including the limits vacated when the current investment by an FPI runs off either through sale or redemption, shall be required to be made in corporate bonds with a minimum residual maturity of three years. Furthermore, FPIs will not be allowed to invest incrementally in short maturity liquid/money market mutual fund schemes.” [4]

This is a direct administrative decree that not only transmits confusing signals to market participants but could also incur their displeasure. Rajan even admitted in a recent newspaper interview: “I generally believe we should not micro-manage. But the one place where I do make a strong exception is on financial stability. There are situations when market participants do not fully internalise the consequences of their action because they know they can leave before the consequences hit them.” [5]

One reason for the directive could be swelling short-term loans and the bunching up of repayments in the near future. However, data seems to indicate otherwise: according to external debt data till 30 September 2014, released by the Ministry of Finance, short-term debt is only 18.9% of the total external outstanding debt of about $456 billion. At the end of June, it was slightly higher at 19.6%. [6]

So, why is the RBI imposing this diktat now? Clearly, it is a bit jumpy about the consequences of an interest rate hike by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank some time this year. When that happens, many global investors are expected to withdraw funds from emerging markets like India and invest in the U.S. instead.

Such an outflow could create pressure on the current account, the rupee exchange rate, and on domestic interest rates. India experienced this in 2013. Rajan wants to bullet-proof the balance-sheet not only before the event, but also prior to the announcement of the Budget at the end of February.

References

[1] Clinch, Matt, Italy launches tax on high-frequency transactions; CNBC, 2 September 2013, <http://www.cnbc.com/id/101002422#>

[2] European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax, 14 February 2013, <http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/taxation/com_2013_71_en.pdf>

[3] Ministry of Finance, Government of India; Revenue Budget, Budget Documents, <http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2014-15/rec/tr.pdf>

[4] Rajan, Raghuram G, Sixth Bi-Monthly Monetary Policy Statement; 5 February 2015, <http://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=33144>

[5] Sriram R., Bodhisatva Ganguli and Gayatri Nayak, ‘The War on inflation is still not won: RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan’, The Economic Times, 5 February 2015, <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-02-05/news/58838165_1_rbi-governor-raghuram-rajan-urjit-patel-committee-inflation>

[6] External Debt Management Unit, Economic Affairs Department, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, India’s External Debt as at End-September 2014, December 2014, <http://finmin.nic.in/the_ministry/dept_eco_affairs/economic_div/ExternalDebt_Sep14_E.pdf>

© Copyright 2014 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Reprinted with permission from Gateway House: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/a-tobin-tax-for-india/

and

The Hindu BusinessLine: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/tobin-tax-makes-a-lot-of-sense/article6898724.ece?homepage=true

India-U.S. BIT: Not A Done Deal Yet

India is revising the model draft agreement of its existing bilateral investment treaties. Some of the new clauses are unlikely to be accepted by either U.S. negotiators or U.S. corporations without substantial dilution

U.S. President Barack Obama’s second visit to India has resurrected hopes that the two countries will revive talks on the dormant but in-progress Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT). A BIT is being eagerly sought by both sides—from the U.S., to provide comfort to American companies that they will not be treated unfairly, and from India in the belief that it will help increase foreign investment inflows into India.

But negotiating the many tripwires of the BIT will take time and effort. It may therefore be wise to rein in the optimism that is usually generated by high-profile state visits and the associated optics. More so because every significant India-U.S. bilateral visit in recent times—by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Washington DC in September 2014, by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to India in June 2014 and January 2015, and by U.S. Trade representative Michael Froman in November 2014—has rekindled expectations about the abandoned BIT.

Talks on a BIT between the two countries have been on hold since February 2014. [1] Preparations to restart the conversation resumed in the backrooms soon after Modi’s swearing-in on 26 May 2014. Kerry discussed the pending BIT agreement with Modi on the sidelines of the Vibrant Gujarat Summit earlier in January. Diane Farrell, acting president of the U.S. Indian Business Council, confirmed this in a press statement. [2]

However, many hurdles will have to be cleared before any real progress can be made on the BIT. One of the obstacles is that India’s own BIT regime—the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA)—is in cold storage. India is currently reviewing the draft of the existing model agreement and is yet to produce a blueprint that is acceptable to all stakeholders, including different ministries (such as Finance, Commerce, Law and External Affairs). India has signed 83 BIPPAs since 1994 and enforced 72 of these agreements.

The existing text has been under review since early 2013 because many international companies have initiated overseas arbitration against the Indian government—17 new arbitration proceedings over issues as varied as Supreme Court’s cancellation of 2G licences and retrospective taxation notices were filed in the past two years alone. The companies which have sued the Indian government include Deutsche Telecom, Vodafone, and White Industries, under India’s BIPPAs with Germany, The Netherlands, and Australia, respectively.

Another speed-breaker is conflict within the government. The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP, in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry) is opposed to BIPPAs in general [3, 4]. The DIPP is responsible for framing India’s foreign direct investment (FDI) strategy, as well as promoting, approving, and facilitating FDI. The DIPP believes that a conducive economic and legal environment is sufficient to attract foreign investments. It also believes that the existing BIPPAs are likely to result in increased lawsuits and has suggested that the sunset clause in these agreements be invoked to annul them. On the other hand, India’s finance and external affairs ministries are both in favour of an overhaul of the existing template, which will then have to be applied to all existing 83 agreements.

The conflict also arises from the government’s duality in matters of foreign investment—while the DIPP is responsible for FDI, the Ministry of Finance is responsible for administering the BIPPAs.

Talks could face headwinds due to certain new clauses in the draft model agreement. There is a proposal to dilute the “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) system. Unlike the existing contract, henceforth foreign investors will not be able to take the Indian government to international arbitration unless they have first exhausted all legal and administrative options within India.

Clearly, this is a reaction to the spate of offshore arbitration proceedings. It is likely that this defensive move was inspired by external developments. Brazil has eschewed ISDS and South Africa is likely to follow. Australia is under pressure from its civil society to drop ISDS from all its agreements (especially the one with U.S.) and not from a select few, as is the case currently.[5]

The entire ecosystem of perverse incentives built around the international arbitration system could have also compelled the Indian government to dilute ISDS—armies of highly-paid, ambulance-chasing lawyers who have created an entire business model out of arbitrations and arbitrators who keep dragging cases on because they get paid handsomely by the hour—all operating in a highly secretive system. [6] The reworked BIPPA draft tries to ensure a transparent arbitration system by stipulating certain conditions.

But a BIT bereft of ISDS is bound to be opposed by American negotiators and potential U.S. investors. The popular narrative has portrayed the Indian judicial system as slow and inefficient. Indian authorities, on the other hand, are wary of biases in the overseas arbitration tribunals. Achieving a consensus between India and the U.S. on this count is going to be tricky, but India seems to have global precedent set by Brazil, Australia and South Africa in its favour.

A deal-breaker could be intellectual property rights (IPR), a vexed issue on both sides. The U.S.’s private sector has been persistently lobbying with its government for extracting concessions from India, with the National Association of Manufacturers even pushing the U.S. Trade Representative to label India as a “priority foreign country”, an epithet reserved for the worst IPR offenders.

India’s counter-argument has been that its IPR regime is compliant with the World Trade Organisation’s TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) multilateral agreement, and it considers the U.S.’s Special 301 report—an annual publication from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) identifying trade barriers to U.S. companies and countries which do not provide “adequate and effective” protection of intellectual property rights—unilateral.

Several other prickly issues could sabotage talks—a proposal to drop the most favoured nation status from the agreement, re-phrased expropriation clauses, and re-worded text that ensures that the BIT/BIPPA does not end up favouring foreign investors while discomfiting domestic ones.

Negotiations are all about give-and-take, ceding some strategic space while appropriating critical concessions. This is, admittedly, a time-consuming process. A lot will, however, depend on American corporations and their attitude to doing business in one of the world’s biggest and fastest growing markets in the world.

REFERENCES

[1] Parashar, Sachin, ‘India, U.S. Agree to Restart Talks on Bilateral Investment Treaty’, Times of India; 12 January 2015, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-US-agree-to-restart-talks-on-bilateral-investment-treaty/articleshow/45846021.cms>

[2] US India Business Council, USIBC Members Brief John Kerry, Secretary of State, and Catherine Novelli, Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment at Vibrant Gujarat 2015, 13 January 2015, <http://www.usibc.com/press-release/us-india-business-council%E2%80%99s-delegation-vibrant-gujarat-hosts-us-secretary-state-john>

[3] Sidhartha, ‘Finance ministry to move Cabinet for clearing new BIPA text’, Times of India, 24 June 2014, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Finance-ministry-to-move-Cabinet-for-clearing-new-BIPA-text/articleshow/37108910.cms>

[4] Press Trust of India, ‘Finance & Commerce Ministry to discuss draft BIPA model tomorrow’, Business Standard, 13 August 2014, <http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/fin-min-com-ind-min-to-discuss-draft-bipa-model-tomorrow-114081300432_1.html>

[5] Chan, Gabrielle, ‘Bill to ban investor-state dispute settlements garners support’,The Guardian, 14 April 2014, <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/14/bill-to-ban-investor-state-dispute-settlements-garners-support>

[6] The Economist, The arbitration game, 11 October 2014, <http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration>

© Copyright 2014 Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. All rights reserved. Any unauthorized copying or reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Reprinted with permission from Gateway House: http://www.gatewayhouse.in/india-u-s-bit-not-a-done-deal-yet/
and
Quartz India: http://qz.com/332427/the-biggest-investment-deal-between-india-and-the-us-is-nowhere-close-to-completion/