India’s Creative Economy Needs Creative Solutions

It is time to either upgrade Trai’s capacity or to even start thinking again of an independent and separate broadcasting regulator

Sometimes you don’t need to look under rocks to find the objectionable.

The auction for T20 cricket’s Indian Premier League (IPL) broadcast rights, across geographies and media, has amplified the asymmetry in regulatory frameworks operating in the creative economy. The entire issue should also help triangulate a policy conversation between competition law, intellectual property rights and a sectoral regulatory/legislative narrative that has failed to comprehend the dynamics of India’s growing media and entertainment industry.

Star Group’s winning bid for IPL media rights was made via a transparent process. But the voluble protests preceding and following it have their roots in the Indian economy’s enduring legacy of cronyism and government patronage. Even if we move beyond the immediacy of the complaints and try to focus on the larger picture, the state of strife and conflict does underscore the need for regulatory reform in the creative economy. Specifically, it highlights three issues: multiplicity of regulators leading to lack of clarity on regulatory jurisdictions; need to grant supremacy to Indian Copyright Act—which governs creation, broadcasting and monetization of content—over a plethora of other laws and regulations that are stifling legitimate rights of content creators; and, finally, whether the 20th century mode of administered pricing for content produced in the private sector for sale in the open market can still work in the 21st century.

At the heart of the debate is the difference between monopoly over content and content monopoly. Monopoly over content arises when the content creator has the sole right, granted by law, to monetize the intellectual property embedded in the content for a specific period of time. Content monopoly arises when there is only one content producer in the entire industry and can hold distributors and consumers to ransom, which is clearly not the case in the India.

However, the extant regulatory framework seems to be ignoring these nuances and apprehension over content monopoly seems to have engendered systems that grant subordinate status to the Indian Copyright Act for broadcasting organizations, which is in contrast to global norms. Indeed, indications about content’s future were discernible in the IPL auctions: Facebook’s Rs3,900 crore bid for digital rights (for the Indian Subcontinent) trumped Airtel’s Rs3,280 crore and Reliance Jio’s Rs3,075.72 crore bids. Though Facebook eventually lost out to Star’s consolidated bid, the incident demonstrates how digital content is clearly the next battleground and how companies are according supremacy to content. It also brings into sharp relief the question of net neutrality and the role of gatekeepers. This then also begs the question: Is the current regulatory structure, erected to generate societal equity through mandated economic pricing, adequate and symmetrical for content delivered through cable/satellite and through digital pipelines?

The private television industry in India is of fairly recent vintage. Yet, a vice-like grip of regulators and regulations governs its creativity. The key regulatory institutions overseeing the industry are the ministry of information and broadcasting, the ministry of electronics and information technology, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, the Competition Commission of India, the department of industrial policy and promotion in the ministry for commerce and industry, the Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal and the department of telecommunications in the ministry of communications.

Given the multiplicity of agencies, there is a wide and bewildering assortment of laws, rules and guidelines that govern this sector: Indian Copyright Act, Information Technology Act, Consumer Protection Act, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, plus a labyrinthine web of regulations from Trai.

Historically, all attempts to establish an appropriate regulatory regime for the broadcasting and cable industry fell victim to political fragility of the 1990s, till the Centre reclassified broadcasting and cable services as telecommunication services in 2004 and appointed Trai as the designated regulator. Occasional attempts to create an independent broadcasting regulatory authority suffered pre-mature deaths due to political uncertainty.

With Trai and so many other agencies, acts, rules and guidelines at play—often at cross-purposes to each other—it is only natural that the playing field gets skewed in favour of those with unequal political bargaining power. In the sector’s infancy, the boundaries were stretched by organizations that employed musclemen and were friendly with political parties. Not all companies were born from this violent crucible, but some of the leading names in media and entertainment rose to prominence from this brutal churning. In addition, as various stakeholders have pointed out, the regulator’s lack of capacity has also led to the current regulatory distortions.

According to the KPMG India-Ficci report on Indian media and entertainment industry, 2017, Trai’s March order on inter-connect and pricing of channels may lead to a decline in revenue for broadcasters and might even result in an increased monthly outlay for many subscribers, thereby defeating the very purpose of the pricing model. Clearly, it is time to either upgrade Trai’s capacity or to even start thinking again of an independent and separate broadcasting regulator.

This article was originally published in Mint newspaper and can also be read here 

Pointers To A Future-Ready Payments Policy

Regulation, almost always, lags technology development. But an opportunity to create a future-ready policy framework now seems close at hand

Events over the past few weeks have thrown up numerous pointers to what should be included in a future payments-system policy framework.

The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) 2017-18 annual report provided the first clue, proving a well-known policy paradigm: competition and freedom of choice are essential tools to avoid distorting markets and the broad economy. An overnight ban on Rs500 and Rs1,000 bank notes—accounting for about 85% of outstanding currency—dealt a body-blow to the economy in terms of jobs, incomes, livelihoods, investment appetite and overall economic growth. The ruinous effects manifested themselves last week: gross domestic product for April-June quarter grew by only 5.7%, the lowest in many quarters.

Demonetisation amounted to suppression of free choice—or freedom to decide how much cash to use, for which transactions—though different reasons were adduced to justify the decision. One of the reasons cited, which has persisted into the post-demonetisation period, is a desire to foster digital payments and to migrate the economy to a less-cash system.

This is a desirable economic objective. However, the policy vectors put in place reveal multiple gaps: lack of a robust competition and innovation policy; uncertainty over the payment regulator’s quasi-legislative powers; an unclear road map for achieving financial inclusion; and, an asymmetric preference hierarchy between different payment systems imposed on the consumer. The last one violates democratic principles by coercing the public to move away from a relatively low-cost payment system (such as cash) to a higher cost platform (such as, mobile wallets which involve connectivity costs).

The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) recent ruling on right to privacy as a fundamental right is likely to complicate the regulatory debate further and might necessitate a systems rethink. The judgement reads: “The balance between data regulation and individual privacy raises complex issues requiring delicate balances to be drawn between the legitimate concerns of the State on one hand and individual interest in the protection of privacy on the other.” The nine-judge bench, while acknowledging that the Centre has already appointed a committee under former SC judge B.N. Srikrishna to study the state of India’s data privacy and to submit a draft bill, hopes that the Union government will take “all necessary and proper steps”.

Still, the right to privacy ruling in itself does set out a future regulatory perimeter for digital financial services. The bench found some pointers in a 2012 report from an expert group on privacy, appointed by the erstwhile Planning Commission. Specifically, the report mentions a five-pillar conceptual scaffolding for drafting legislation to protect privacy: technological neutrality and inter-operability with international standards, which is still lacking; multi-dimensional privacy; horizontal applicability to state and non-state entities to ensure a level-playing field; conformity with privacy principles in line with global best practices; and a co-regulatory enforcement regime which envisages co-existence of independent regulators and self-regulating organizations. Ironically, some of these issues are still being debated in the policy space.

There are multiple views on what to make of SC’s judgement; for example, Chennai’s IFMR Trust, soon after the SC ruling, published a blog advocating stakeholder consultation to determine what kinds of data can and should be collected, the desirable regulatory regime for data mining and algorithmic techniques and a legislative terrain to “ensure that use of personal data is tied to legitimate proportional objectives and interests”.

There is another critical, and slightly obvious, ingredient necessary in the future regulatory mix: trust. This was evident when digital payments spiked during November-December 2016 and then tapered off subsequently; people abhor repression and any attempts to increase the value and volume of digital payments must be achieved through trust, not duress. Regulation must have a consumer bias and should not be designed to favour some service providers.

Lack of trust in paper money issued by sovereigns, and controlled by central banks, is growing as is wider acceptance of crypto-currencies. Already six large global banks—Barclays, Credit Suisse, HSBC, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, State Street and the Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group—have jointly launched a project to use block-chain for clearing and settling financial transactions, reducing time taken for conventional money transfers.

While bitcoins and other crypto-assets are still in an embryonic state in India, the pace of acceptance is slowly picking up. Many community-based initiatives have been advocating block-chain as an alternative to organized finance, viewed as exploitative. The finance ministry appointed a nine-member inter-disciplinary committee to suggest the way forward with crypto-currencies; the committee has submitted its report, which has not been made public yet. Eventually, though, RBI will have to decide whether it will allow money to also exist as crypto-currency, in addition to its role as a commodity (with or without intrinsic value), a financial claim and/or as an accounting entry.

Regulation, almost always, lags technology development. But an opportunity to create a future-ready policy framework now seems close at hand.

The article originally appeared in Mint newspaper on September 6, 2017, and can also be read here

READING BETWEEN THE LINES: Interpreting Trump’s Not-So-Subtle Threat To India To Do More In Afghanistan

The India-US relationship has conventionally been undergirded by commonly shared democratic traditions, despite periodic upheavals. Thanks to president Donald Trump, this is likely to change soon and acquire a transactional shade based on quid pro quo, where acknowledgement is contingent on favours extended.

This was evident when Trump unveiled his long overdue strategy for Afghanistan, a nettlesome issue that’s remained unresolved through the last four presidencies to now bedevil a fifth one. Apart from his trademark bluster and rhetoric, Trump’s speech revealed two distinct strands: a deal-based approach to achieving strategic objectives, and, a marked candour that separates his speech from the studied diplomatese of past presidents.

Obviously, no speech on Afghanistan and South Asia can ignore India. But, Trump’s hat-tip to India and its critical role in maintaining regional stability has acquired a new binary, apart from a foreboding tenor: “We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.”

This is a curious statement, tethering Indo-US trade to India’s help in Afghanistan, and can be parsed in multiple ways.

One, this is a clear and overt threat: cooperate or else. President Trump has been waving the trade flag in all his perorations concerning India. He has been unequivocal about seeking enhanced market access for US goods and services. The joint press statement issued during prime minister Narendra Modi’s Washington DC visit has him saying: “It is important that barriers be removed to the export of US goods into your markets, and that we reduce our trade deficit with your country.” Indo-US trade touched $114.8 billion during 2016, with India enjoying a $30.8-billion trade surplus. It would seem Trump has made India’s trade with the US contingent upon cooperation in Afghanistan.

There is a second aspect. India’s port and associated connectivity projects in Chabahar, south-east Iran, have been delayed. The port, and its rail and road linkages, are expected to provide India an alternative trade route to Afghanistan and other central Asian republics, bypassing Pakistan. The highway linking that port with Hajigak mines in Afghanistan is expected to facilitate movement of iron ore for Indian steel plants. The Afghan Iron and Steel Consortium, a group of six companies led by public sector Steel Authority of India and brothers Naveen and Sajjan Jindal, has won concessions for three iron ore mines, including projects to set up steel and power generating companies in the Hajigak region. Connectivity is expected to help operationalise the $10 billion project, which is beneficial for both India and Afghanistan.

Many similar Indian projects are either in limbo or progressing slowly due to a combination of factors: concerns over security, changing domestic political configurations in Afghanistan, and the global economic slowdown rendering initial cost and revenue estimates awry. A lot will, therefore, depend now on how the US plays its cards with Iran and how additional US boots on Afghan soil affect India’s spectrum of projects in the war-ravaged economy.

There is a third angle, albeit an unspoken one. There has been speculation for some time now that Trump’s Afghan adventure is fuelled by a desire to help US companies access the nation’s vast mineral resources, still unexploited. The minerals range from iron ore, copper, and zinc to precious gems (lapis lazuli, emeralds, rubies) and even rare earth minerals like lithium. Many of these are being illegally mined by the Taliban and other militant rebel factions, largely as a funding source. While many estimates about the value of minerals trapped under Afghan soil have been thrown around, it is believed that the lure of access to these resources is what changed a reluctant president’s mind about continuing the US’s engagement in Afghanistan.

Trump’s exhortation to India on Afghanistan could, thus, also be viewed as an implicit inducement: cooperate and we will allow you to share in the mineral spoils.

Finally, the Indian reference could be an attempt to placate the US’s strategic and political community, which has as many India supporters as opposers. Hence, the attempt to pack both “for and against” sentiments into a short and contradictory statement.

On its part, the Indian ministry of external affairs (MEA) has welcomed Trump’s Afghan initiative, though the gamely and cryptic approval is conspicuously silent on the noisy undertones of the speech. Any shades of glee detectable in MEA’s response, can, of course, be attributed to schadenfreude.

Trump has thundered against Pakistan and held out direct threats to that country. “We can no longer be silent The MEA’s respo about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond…We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars; at the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change, and that will change immediately.”

The MEA’s official reaction welcoming issues of safe havens and cross-border terrorism was predictably pointed.

To be fair, the MEA’s response has been circumscribed by the duality in Trump’s speech. His bluntness on Pakistan is a break from usual president-speak: This is the first time that a sitting US president has openly used such harsh words against traditional ally Pakistan. At the same time, the ambiguity arising from the odd pairing used in the India reference, which is open to multiple interpretations, is bewildering. But it does reveal a slice of Trump’s foreign policy bias: a calculus that will increasingly be based on give-and-take.

The article was originally published in qz.com and can also be read here

The Republic of Statistical Scramble

Straightening out data inconsistencies should be a government priority

Many a caustic word has been exchanged in the acrimonious debate over the Indian economy’s employment data. One set of numbers claims the current phase of economic growth as jobless. Alternative data sets have accompanied vigorous assertions of rising employment. And then there are many in the middle, trying to make sense of the scant (and outdated) data and wondering how anybody reached any conclusion at all.

Welcome to the republic of statistical scramble in the age of Big Data. The Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) 2014 election victory was predicated partly on the promise of enhanced economic well-being; straightening out data inconsistencies should be a priority on the path to fulfilling that promise.

Take a look at labour data. Currently, employment data is collated from different surveys, each one measuring different things using varied methodologies. NITI Aayog’s task force on improving employment data recently released the first draft of its report, which lists how several arms of the government get involved in collecting and mashing up data. The report is unequivocal about the current state of data collection: “The available estimates are either out-dated or based on surveys with design flaws that render them unsuitable for inferring nationwide employment level.”

On the demand side, the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO), in the ministry of statistics and programme implementation (Mospi), conducts a comprehensive household survey once every five years, with the last one occurring in 2011-12. The labour bureau in the ministry of labour and employment also conducts two household surveys—a quarterly quick employment survey and another on an annual basis. These are in addition to the decadal population census surveys, which measure two variables: a headcount of all types of workers at 10-year intervals and all non-agricultural enterprises, regardless of size.

On the jobs supply side, Mospi conducts a statutory annual industries survey for units registered under the Factories Act, 1948. NSSO also conducts an unorganized units survey; this is in addition to the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) census conducted by the MSME ministry. Finally, various government administrative bodies, such as the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) or Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), provide some indication of organized sector employment trends (though this is being increasingly undermined by growing preference for contract labour). In addition, there are some private sector surveys also—for example, by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy.

All these measures suffer from some infirmity, whether it’s methodological, unviable sample size, inability to distinguish between different types of employment, long gaps or irregular frequencies. But one thing is common: the findings only provide a partial picture and are therefore useless as a tool for policy design. Part two of the Economic Survey says: “The lack of reliable estimates on employment in recent years has impeded its measurement and thereby the Government faces challenges in adopting appropriate policy interventions.”

The NSSO has, in the meantime, begun a fresh, ambitious annual exercise to map all nature of employment data; a quarterly survey will generate similar estimates for urban areas. In its report, NITI Aayog has recommended, among other things, vast improvements to existing surveys, institutional and legislative changes, overhauling physical and digital infrastructure and more aggressive use of technology to crunch the time-gap. 

But the study might need to extend beyond employment data because statistical distortions also exist in other areas. NITI Aayog provides an example about the state of statistical confusion: each enterprise, while filing returns or statutory information, is assigned a different identification number under Good and Services Tax Network, EPFO, ESIC, Factories Act and Shops and Establishment Act.

This problem is not restricted to enterprise data and exists in other government departments as well. Take the example of estimating the cotton crop. Two separate ministries release two separate estimates every year.

The agriculture ministry’s cotton crop estimate for 2015-16 was 30.15 million bales of 170kg each, while the textile ministry’s estimate for the same year was 33.8 million bales—that’s a difference of 620 million kg! In the previous year, 2014-15, the estimates put out by the two ministries were 34.8 million bales and 38 million bales, respectively. This divergence seems bewildering, especially when acreage estimates from both the ministries broadly tally.

Forget discrepancies between ministries: this paper had reported (goo.gl/vsYGzc) how cotton yield figures differ widely within the agriculture ministry. There have also been reports (goo.gl/fd9adW) about vastly varying data on the number of taxpayers added since demonetization emerging from different parts of the government. Mismatch between data sets from within the government also breeds scepticism regarding the statistical robustness of national accounting, especially when anecdotal evidence seems contra to buoyant gross domestic product data.

India’s magnificent statistical heritage distinguishes the nation from its neighbours, whose growth record is often viewed with scepticism globally. This infrastructure needs an urgent overhaul to maintain credibility, perceive economic trends and deliver appropriate policy prescriptions.

The article originally appeared in Mint newspaper on August 23, 2017, and can also be read here

RBI’s Studied Silence Over External Vulnerabilities

Critics are questioning the wisdom of the RBI after a 25 basis point reduction in benchmark interest rates fell short of capital market expectations

The Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) 25 basis point reduction in benchmark interest rates fell short of capital market expectations. They were expecting a deeper cut but the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) played safe, given uncertainty surrounding the future inflationary path. Critics are questioning the wisdom of the central bank and its MPC.

MPC members surely deserve to be cut some slack. But, in the general din over low food inflation, insufficient interest rate cuts and RBI’s unchanged neutral policy stance, the central bank’s policy statement omitted mention of a small crimp: a tsunami of portfolio flows, another possible source of inflationary pressures. The central bank’s studied silence about external vulnerabilities raises many questions.

This rush of foreign currency has forced RBI to take steps which have disappointed overseas debt markets and investors: for instance, rules have been tightened for issuing masala bonds through introduction of maturity floors and interest rate caps. This comes when masala bonds were gaining popularity with both issuers and investors. In another (though seemingly unrelated) circular, the RBI has sought to elongate the maturity profile of investments by foreign portfolio investors (FPI) in government bonds. Capital markets regulator, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), followed through with another circular, ordering a temporary stop to future masala bond issuances.

The RBI has probably sensed higher risk—in terms of both rates and exposures—in the opening of masala bond floodgates, especially after offshore arms of certain Indian companies raised foreign currency loans in overseas markets and then on-lent the proceeds to domestic entities as rupee bonds. This structure defeats the entire purpose of shielding Indian borrowers from exchange rate volatility since it provides original lenders with an indirect claim on domestic assets.

Sebi’s rationale is that FPI investments in corporate bonds have reached close to the limit of Rs244,323 crore. This ceiling includes all rupee-denominated bonds, offshore or on-shore. The regulator’s circular also states that masala bond investments can resume only after limit utilization falls below 92%.

RBI’s rear-guard action also probably stems from the combined effect of two other reports—its own report on India’s external debt and the annual External Sector Report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Both sound circumspect about India’s rising short-term foreign debt levels. The IMF reports states: “Given that portfolio debt flows have been volatile and the exchange rate has been sensitive to these flows and changes in global risk aversion, attracting more stable sources of financing is needed to reduce vulnerabilities… Further initiatives on creating a more conducive business environment, particularly the implementation of long-standing labour market and power sector reforms, are necessary to attract greater FDI flows.”

FPI investments in equity and debt markets saw combined net inflows of Rs171,581 crore till July end. This is six times more than the Rs27,055 crore invested by FPIs during the same period of 2016. This surge had rupee appreciating by almost 5.8% between 2 January and 31 July.

Such large inflows put RBI’s absorption skills to the test. First, it has to intervene in the foreign exchange market to absorb foreign currency inflows so that portfolio investments do not push up the rupee-dollar rate beyond its sustainable and economic value. The resultant overhang of rupee liquidity then requires a second defensive action: the RBI has to mop up liquidity through a variety of instruments. For example, in the 11 working days between 17 July and 29 July, RBI absorbed Rs405,228 crore. Sterilization has its costs, especially when central banks sell high-yield domestic instruments while buying relatively low-yielding foreign currency assets. There are also fiscal implications.

The central bank’s woes do not end here: it needs to calibrate another two-step dance. The RBI’s remonetization exercise is still far from complete but it is unable to accomplish that at full tilt, given the wash of domestic liquidity. At the same time, it has to ensure that there is enough liquidity to make up for lost productivity during demonetization. Both will require precision and fine-tuning. Plus, it needs to ensure there’s just enough liquidity to keep yields soft.

There’s another dilemma. The FPI investment limit in corporate bonds was fixed when the exchange rate was below Rs50 to a dollar and common sense dictates a re-calculation of the limit. But the central bank is not doing that just yet, given that its hands are full trying to staunch current inflows.

Times like these are ripe for conspiracy theories. There are misgivings that RBI’s efforts could be an indirect attempt to ensure borrowers do not export the domestic bank credit market to offshore centres. While bank credit growth remains anaemic, Bloomberg data shows Indian companies raised $8.9 billion through overseas bond sales till July, 63% higher than the previous year. It is believed many companies took advantage of tightening spreads and used foreign currency bond sales to refinance domestic bank exposures, thereby intensifying balance of payments risks.

The MPC statement omits mention of external sector developments. Hopefully, the RBI will separately provide a more comprehensive communication that details the risks and the mitigation measures.

The article originally appeared in Mint newspaper on August 9, 2017, and can also be read here

India-Africa Ties: Economics and Multilateralism

If India is serious about its Africa initiative, a lot will depend on how it marshals its banking and financial sector there

The Leaders’ Declaration from G20 this year comes with an added annexure. It is called the G20 Africa Partnership, included at the insistence of Germany, which has the G20 presidency for 2017 and is at liberty to set the multilateral grouping’s agenda for the year. The annexure states its purpose: “The Partnership intends to support related initiatives of the G20 and facilitate investment compacts between interested African countries, international organisations and interested partners to support private investment, sustainable infrastructure and employment in African countries.”

Germany, as well as the European Union, have an abiding interest in Africa. The unrelenting waves of migration from North African shores (often leading to loss of lives while crossing the tempestuous Mediterranean Sea) and Europe’s volatile immigration politics are likely to have prompted Germany to rally the international community around Africa’s plight. Hence the partnership document focuses, among other things, on creating sustainable employment opportunities so that African youth do not risk lives in search of livelihood elsewhere.

Ironically, the G20 club includes only one African nation, South Africa. The Partnership document has its fair share of detractors, especially within African nations, and suspicions about its overwhelming reliance on private sector investment.

It also holds out three lessons for India.

The first relates to deeply embedded historical attitudes towards Africa. These rose to the surface again, perhaps unwittingly, while French President Emmanuel Macron was addressing a G20 press conference in Hamburg. Answering a question on why there was no Marshall Plan for Africa, Macron is believed to have said Africa had a different set of problems, which included “civilizational” problems. Some of the unique problems cited by Macron included failed states, complex democratic transitions and African women giving birth to seven-eight children. This predictably triggered a maelstrom of protests and diverted attention to Africa’s colonial past and France’s role in it. Macron’s statement was also viewed as reflecting Europe’s smug (and enduring) belief of civilizational superiority. Macron almost buried the partnership even before it had an opportunity to take off.

India must take note of this public relations disaster. The impact of government’s intensive outreach programmes has often been blunted by violent displays of racism against African students and citizens living in Indian cities. It is indeed an odd occurrence for India, which boasts of a long and shared history with Africa—especially cultural, social and trade ties. If at all, there is a felt need to accelerate the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (Itec) programme which provides capacity building for officials from low- income countries.

The second lesson arises from the G20’s internal contradictions and the possible impact on India. The document has a section on strengthening the framework for investments and private finance in Africa, in which the G20 welcomes other partners and “…complementary measures by the forthcoming EU External Investment Plan, the Forum of China Africa Cooperation, the Tokyo International Conference on African Development as well as others”.

Herein lie the conflicts within the G20: China, Japan, Turkey and the US are all independently competing for a foothold in Africa, with each country aggressively courting nations and their heads of state. Germany and the European Union are joining the fray now. India also has its own India Africa Forum Summit, which has been re-energized and supplemented with state visits by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then president Pranab Mukherjee, vice-president Hamid Ansari and other senior ministers.

Given the multiplicity of competing interests, it has to be seen whether different countries will be willing to subsume their Africa ambitions under an over-arching multilateral approach. India will need to watch this effort closely. If required, India could consider activating the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC), its joint initiative with Japan, through the G20 compact. The AAGC, which places significant emphasis on both infrastructure investment and capacity building, aligns well with the G20’s Africa approach.

The third point relates to the implicit assumptions behind private sector investments—that they will automatically generate more trade. Unfortunately, intra-Africa trade accounts for only 14% of Africa’s total trade. It is true that poor infrastructure slows down intra-Africa trade traffic, and therefore higher investments in road and rail infrastructure will surely help. The problem lies elsewhere—the lack of a trade facilitation culture and customs capacity which hinders cargo movement. India and Itec can definitely help here.

More importantly, there are other opportunities for India. Data from the African Development Bank shows only 31% of Africa’s trade is backed by bank-intermediated trade finance. This is clearly an opportunity for Indian banks. India’s banking presence in Africa seems to have lost its relevance over time: The geographical footprint is built around traditional Indian diaspora habitats in east and south Africa, and operations are tailored around ethnic banking services. Late in entering Africa, Chinese banks have already acquired stakes in leading banks. If India is serious about its Africa initiative, a lot will depend on how it marshals its banking and financial sector there.

The above article was published in Mint newspaper on July 26, 2017, and can also be accessed here 

The Chinese Encirclement: Within and Without

The recent geopolitical dispute highlights the fraught and schizophrenic nature of the India-China relationship

The recent border dispute has again raised the spectre of Chinese encirclement. It comes close on the heels of India’s boycott of the ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) summit in China. What is unfortunate, though, is that the dreaded encirclement may have already occurred and, if anything, the recent dispute highlights the fraught and schizophrenic nature of the India-China relationship.

The fresh skirmish at the tri-junction of India, Bhutan and China is part of on-going border tensions. The stand-off continues with both sides raising the temperature gradually, much like the dial on a thermostat; apart from incendiary statements, China recently increased its fleet presence in the Indian Ocean Region. In the past, many similar border misunderstandings were resolved quietly. The latest one burst into the headlines with impeccable timing during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US.

India ignored the BRI summit because it objects to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which passes through Pakistan-occupied disputed territory. India’s contention is that CPEC is a unilateral validation of Pakistan’s claim on disputed territory. There are other reasons for India’s nervousness. China’s BRI is viewed as a strategic encirclement of India: Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, CPEC traversing west China via Gilgit-Baltistan all the way to Gwadar port in Balochistan, a road from Yunan province cutting through Myanmar to end at a deep-sea port in Kyaukpyu.

But, apart from the geopolitical squeeze, developments seem to indicate that a Chinese geo-economic encirclement may have already happened. While there is popular concern over the overwhelming presence of China-made idols of Indian gods or cheap toys, these are the proverbial iceberg’s tip. What seems to have gone unnoticed is an insidious China creep within the Indian trade, business and financial landscape.

News from the cricket world provides a glimpse: Chinese handset manufacturer Vivo won rights to cricket tournament Indian Premier League (IPL). Vivo will pay Rs2,199 crore for the next five years, which works out to 267% premium over base price of Rs120 crore a year. The next closest bidder was Oppo, which bid Rs1,430 crore for five years. Vivo’s bid is impressive, when compared to Oppo’s bid or the base price, or even amounts paid by previous sponsors (such as, DLF or Pepsi).

But it’s hard to miss the irony. Brands Vivo and Oppo are actually siblings and manufactured by the same Chinese company, BBK Electronics (which also owns brand One Plus). The IPL bidding process should have treated them as parties acting in concert, though that seems to have been overlooked in the general brouhaha over the money on the table. Chinese handset brands now command over 50% of the Indian smartphone market share.

Here’s another example. Chinese capital goods manufacturers have made deep inroads into India, with some critical sectors now highly dependent on Chinese spares and after-sales servicing. For instance, in the boiler-turbine-generator (BTG) segment, many Indian power producers have installed Chinese BTGs. In the 12th Plan alone, close to 30% of generating capacity was sourced from China, with the trend continuing in the 13th Plan as well. What tipped the scales, apart from shorter delivery windows, was cheap buyers’ credit (through Exim Bank of China), with installation crews and maintenance staff thrown in.

Chinese portfolio investors are the other angle in geo-economic encirclement. Among the list of banks managing the recent Central Depository Services Ltd initial public offering was a curious name: Haitong Securities India Pvt Ltd. Haitong, as per its website, is China’s second largest securities firm. Many of the firm’s senior management members hold, or have held in the past, organizational positions in the Communist Party of China. Haitong gained a toe-hold in the Indian market through its global acquisition of Espirito Santo. But, what is really interesting is that Haitong Securities was the book running lead manager in an IPO in which government-owned banks—State Bank of India and Bank of Baroda—were divesting their shareholding.

The Chinese footprint in the digital economy is also expanding rapidly. Numerous Chinese companies—Alibaba, Tencent, CTrip, Beijing Miteno Communication Technology, Bytedance—have made large investments in the Indian digital ecosystem, a mission-critical segment for Modi and his ministers.

India suffers a trade deficit with China which has increased over the years: from $38.7 billion in 2012-13 to $51 billion during 2016-17. One of the reasons for the large deficit are Chinese tariff and non-tariff barriers which constrain Indian exports; for example, Indian pharmaceutical exports have found it difficult to penetrate the Chinese market. Increased Chinese foreign direct investment was suggested to counter the rising trade deficit. But, there were no discussions on the nature of that investment: whether for manufacturing or for assembly jobs.

It would be hasty, and perhaps imprudent, to advocate slamming the doors or erecting barriers. But it is difficult to ignore the duality in rhetoric from both sides. The high decibel in security and strategic issues seems to be disengaged from trade and investment realities. One key question, therefore, needs to be answered: What kind of cost-benefit is involved in keeping engaged or in disengaging?

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

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

The Reserve Bank of India Is Changing Again

While RBI’s central board has certain powers, these have been rarely used to oppose finance ministry action

Time was when the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) resembled more a Soviet rationing officer than a conventional central bank. Mercifully, 1991 and economic reforms ended all that; the RBI got down to conventional central banking, which included moving the economy slowly out of administered interest rates, ending automatic monetization of government debt and shrinking its autarchic footprint. After a 26-year hiatus, there are misgivings that RBI could be lapsing into some of its old habits.

In the now defunct central banking format practised by RBI, all credit over Rs1 crore was rationed. Under a scheme called Credit Authorization Scheme, the RBI vetted all large loan proposals. Even though the floor was raised gradually over time, RBI continued to have a say in how much banks could lend to whom, and at what rate. The RBI was also the implementer (and custodian) of the government’s illiberal measures: banks had to compulsorily invest 40% of deposits in low-priced government securities and keep 20% with RBI as a cash reserve. Of the balance 40% left for lending, 40% had to be mandatorily lent at concessional rates, leaving “commercial” banks with only 24% of deposits to play around with. No wonder average lending rates ranged between 16-18% and non-performing assets were rarely recognized, leave alone provisioned.

These are now part of the nation’s sepia-tinted economic history. The RBI has been easing controls for the past 26 years, even though it has retained numerous other controls as part of its mandate to ensure monetary and financial stability. The overall process has not always been smooth or linear. Economic disruptions, both exogenous and endogenous, have occasionally forced the RBI to slow down or undertake course correction.

In recent months, there are suspicions that RBI’s reform mandate may have changed. The central bank’s role in the demonetization exercise sowed the first seeds of doubt. While the RBI’s central board has certain powers, these have been rarely used to oppose government action. Then, as well as now, the RBI would have gone along with the decision. But, here’s the crucial difference: governor and deputy governors could have used different platforms to speak their mind about the extreme decision. They would have made attempts to explain the economic shock to citizens. Instead, RBI’s March report on the macro-economic impact of demonetisation is an exercise in politesse.

Perhaps RBI doesn’t want to speak out because collateral damage from demonetisation has kept it incredibly busy.

Demonetization led to a liquidity surge, forcing the RBI to step in. Banks had no alternative route to deploy this liquidity, given the uncertainty created by demonetisation and industry’s non performing assets (NPA) induced aversion to bank credit. The RBI implemented a four-stage liquidity management programme, using different instruments at different times. Surplus liquidity also depressed debt yields. Around the same time, on 14 December, the US central bank Federal Reserve raised interest rates leading to outflow of foreign portfolio investment (FPI) from Indian debt markets—Rs46,087 crore went out during the last three months of 2016. This continued in January too. Consequently, the rupee-dollar exchange rate also mirrored these trends, depreciating initially and then staying range-bound for a month.

Then, suddenly around end-January, yields on the 10-year government bond started perking up. Foreign portfolio investment inflows also rushed in—Rs51,679 crore during February-April. By end-April, the rupee had also appreciated by almost 6.5% from the lows of 24 November.

The rupee’s appreciation has hurt exporters. But, more importantly, a 6.5% movement in such a short time is a sign of untreated volatility and should have been countered by the RBI. But, tackling the demonetization-led liquidity surge has probably left the RBI with little or no fire-power. Ordinarily, faced with such a predicament, the RBI would have used another weapon: talking the market down. But, neither the RBI governor nor his deputies has spoken a word over the past few months.

Two conclusions arise: either the RBI agrees with the current rupee value (which most economists think is over-valued) or it is scared to speak out. The government’s distaste for former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan’s public speeches was well publicized. RBI’s top brass has delivered only nine public speeches between January and May this year, compared with 23 last year.

Management of stressed assets is another example where the RBI seems to have abandoned characteristic central bank detachment. The RBI is stepping into the mud-pit of stressed assets to help banks recover sticky loans; this includes even taking commercial decisions regarding selection of credit rating agencies. This could expose RBI to serious risk, including reputational risk.

It might be instructive here to recall how Rajan spent his last days in office staving off pressure from the finance ministry, which insisted that the RBI use its balance-sheet to recapitalize public sector banks. At that time, deputy governor Viral Acharya (then professor with Stern School of Business) had criticized it in a Bloomberg story, saying, “At a minimum, it looks opaque and devious…could be perceived as an attack on central banking independence.”

At a time when globalization is in peril, the RBI seems to be voting for a dubious global trend: ceding autonomy to the political executive without a fight.

The above article was first published in Mont newspaper on May 31, 2017, and can also be read here