Economics

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Jobs slump and Covid lead litany of post-Trump crises facing Janet Yellen

      by

      Of all the 78 US Treasury secretaries since Alexander Hamilton first took up the office in 1789, few have faced an in-tray piled quite so high as the one that will greet the first woman in the job: Janet Yellen.The choice of the Brooklyn-born doctor’s daughter to succeed Steve Mnuchin was a statement of intent by president-elect Joe Biden. Where many of her predecessors have been scions of Wall Street, Yellen’s background is in economics and public policy, and she has made it clear that her priorities are with Americans struggling to get by rather than with investment bankers. “There is a huge amount of suffering out there,” she said in September as she urged Congress to agree a new stimulus package.Yellen’s expressed desire for tighter financial regulation did not, however, stop Wall Street from joining the applause for her nomination. In part, that was due to the fact that, having been the first woman to be in charge of America’s central bank, she is seen as a seasoned pro. Donald Trump declined to give her a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve in 2018 not because she was doing a bad job, but because she was a Democrat appointed by Barack Obama.More importantly, though, Wall Street sees Yellen as a Treasury secretary who will push hard for expansionary policies aimed at boosting growth, profits and share prices. Nothing in her record suggests that the financiers are wrong.American economists are often divided into two camps: “freshwater” economists who believe in the primacy of market forces and whose spiritual home is the University of Chicago in landlocked Illinois; and “saltwater” economists, who emanate from the universities on the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards and admire the teachings of John Maynard Keynes.Yellen is a Keynesian to her fingertips: she warned against an over-hasty removal of stimulus during the financial crisis of a decade ago; she insisted that the Fed pay as much attention to unemployment as to inflation when she was its chair; and she believes the state has a duty to tackle poverty and inequality.Mohamed El-Erian, once chief executive of the investment management firm Pimco but now president of Queens’ College, Cambridge, said: “The appointment was probably one of the most well-received in the history of the US Treasury, and for good reason. Economists, lawmakers and market participants rightly see her as highly qualified, having lots of relevant experience and coming to the job with a deep understanding of both domestic and international issues. The policy portfolio she inherits will require an agile mix of traditional and out-of-the-box thinking.”Top of the to-do list will be a new package of support for a US economy struggling with three interlinked problems: a pandemic, high levels of unemployment, and the imminent expiry of financial support for laid-off workers.The jobless total has come down since surging to levels not seen since the Great Depression in the first wave of infections in the spring, but remains troublingly high for a country with, by western standards, a limited welfare safety net. What’s more, the latest data on Friday showed the rate of job creation slowing.Biden wants Congress to pass a “robust” stimulus package, and the chances of that happening will be greatly improved if the Democrats seize control of the Senate by winning the two vacant seats in Georgia next month. If not, as Mark Sobel of the Omfif thinktank says, Biden will be dealing with a “stingy” Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell.The appointment was probably one of the most well received in the history of the US Treasury“Yellen will help negotiate and provide intellectual backing, making the case that now is the time to spend and that with low debt service costs, America should not fret in the near-term about rising debt,” Sobel says.Getting an emergency package of stimulus through Congress will only be the start of the legislative battle, because Biden also wants to spend more on upgrading America’s crumbling infrastructure and on tackling global heating.Yellen’s scope for fiscal action (tax and spending measures) may be limited by gridlock in Congress, in which case the White House will require the Fed to provide more stimulus and a good working relationship between Yellen and the man who succeeded her as head of the central bank, Jerome Powell.While sorting out the labour market and boosting living standards will be the biggest challenge, Yellen will also devote time to other policy issues. She has the executive power to toughen up what she sees as too-weak financial regulation without Congress’s say so; she will adopt a less hostile – if still robust – approach towards China; and she will seek to reassert US leadership on the global stage, pursuing a multilateralist rather than a go-it-alone approach.In all, Yellen can be expected to act as if Trump’s four years in office never happened. The message will be that the grownups are back in charge.Six central bankers who shaped the future of their economiesBen Bernanke Chair of the US Federal Reserve between 2006 and 2014, Bernanke was credited with preventing a deep recession following the 2008 financial crisis. A student of the 1930s Great Depression, he vowed to rescue the banking system and maintain the flow of funds to prevent a wave of foreclosures and mass unemployment.His determination contrasted with the Bank of England, which hesitated before rescuing Northern Rock. However, Bernanke, a former Princeton professor, played down the threat from the US sub-prime mortgage scandal during the first two years of his tenure, which he has admitted made the crisis, when it came, much worse.Karl Otto Pöhl Often dubbed a father of the euro, Pöhl was appointed president of the German Bundesbank from 1980 to 1991 by his friend and mentor, chancellor Helmut Schmidt. A colourful, English-speaking former economics journalist, he came to prominence after the conservative Helmut Kohl surprised many and reappointed him. He famously warned Kohl against rushing ahead with German unification based on a one-to-one valuation of the east German mark with its West German equivalent, fearing the collapse of the east’s uncompetitive export industries. He said the same about the implementation of the euro. Kohl ignored him. East Germany’s industrial base collapsed. After the 2008 financial crisis, southern Europe erupted in riots, with protesters blaming the euro for their ills.Mario Draghi If Pöhl laid the foundation stones for the euro, Draghi prevented the currency from toppling over. In 2012, after campaigns in several member states to quit the euro – notably in Greece and Italy – triggered panic in financial markets, he said the single currency was “irreversible” and famously pledged to do “whatever it takes” to save it.As president of the European Central Bank from 2011 to 2019, which absorbed most of the powers from 19 member states’ central banks on its creation in 1999, he drew a line under the destabilising debate about the currency’s future. After he stepped down, the Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman described him as “[arguably] the greatest central banker of modern times”.Mark Carney Carney was governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to March this year. He was appointed by the chancellor at the time, George Osborne, who courted him for a year and called the former Goldman Sachs banker and head of Canada’s central bank “the outstanding central banker of his generation”. Yet within a year, he was likened to an “unreliable boyfriend” who failed to match his promises with action. This followed a series of overly optimistic forecasts that led many to prepare for an increase in interest rates that never came. Carney, more polished and dapper than his contemporaries, recovered much of his reputation in 2016 when he was dubbed “the only adult in the room” following the Brexit referendum. While parliament went into shock and No 10 was consumed by the resignation of David Cameron, Carney toured the TV and radio stations, calming fraying nerves.Raghuram Rajan The Chicago Booth economics professor is often described as one of the few economists to predict the financial crisis. In a speech in 2005 to the world’s top central bankers he explained that an explosion of borrowing made financial markets more dangerous. At the time he was chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, so he might have expected his warning that “it’s possible these developments are creating a greater (albeit still small) probability of a catastrophic meltdown” would be taken seriously. It wasn’t.He took over as governor of India’s central bank in 2013 after warning that the country was suffering from hubris, adding that “growth can never be taken for granted” and that “self-delusion is the first step towards disaster”. The rupee, which tumbled 12% against the dollar in the three months before his arrival, stabilised. By the time he left in 2016, price inflation had fallen from almost 10% to below 4% and a series of banking reforms were in place.Christine Lagarde As president of the European Central Bank since last year, Lagarde has shown she is a would-be central bank hero. Shifting the dial at an institution covering 19 countries is never easy, but the former boss of the IMF has embarked on a campaign for greater transparency in a break from the traditionally closeted bank’s decision-making, and for unemployment and inequality to be as much of a yardstick for the ECB as inflation. She has also matched Carney in the drive to make central bank lending more climate-friendly, with green bonds that only allow loans to businesses that are environmentally friendly. PI More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      'Move with urgency': Joe Biden's economic team in their own words

      by

      Joe Biden’s incoming economic team is filled with firsts. The lineup that the incoming president introduced this week will, if approved, place women and people of color at the controls of the US economy during one of the darkest periods in recent history.
      While the team is historic, it also faces a historic challenge. Unemployment has fallen dramatically since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic. It fell to 6.7% in November. But it remains 3.2 percentage points above its level before Covid-19 struck, jobs growth is slowing sharply, long-term unemployment is growing and people of color are still suffering hardship at far higher levels than white Americans.
      The pandemic has also exacerbated already worrying levels of income inequality, and across the US, shocking lines are forming at food banks as the country’s already frayed social safety net collapses.
      Congress has been deadlocked on a new round of stimulus money for months. A compromise now seems to be in the works but will come too late for many.
      The future looks difficult too. The US now has a $21.2tn national debt – up from $14.4tn on the day Donald Trump was inaugurated. Republicans, who helped fuel that enormous rise, are now talking about the need for fiscal responsibility.
      Biden’s team is strong on progressive talk. Its members have championed the need for more government intervention, greater equality and a stronger safety net. A look at the team’s own words shows just how ambitiously they are thinking.
      Whether they can achieve those goals looks set to hang on two crucial Senate races in Georgia in January that will decide who controls the Senate.
      Janet Yellen, treasury secretary
      The first woman to head the Treasury if confirmed, Yellen has had a long and distinguished career and was the first woman to head the Federal Reserve.
      This week Yellen called the pandemic recession “an American tragedy” and said: “It’s essential that we move with urgency.”
      An expert on labor markets, she has long highlighted income inequality and its disproportionate impact on people of color in the US. “There really is a new kind of recognition that you’ve got a society where capitalism is beginning to run amok and needs to be readjusted,” she told Reuters recently.
      In a 2014 speech, she said: “The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern me.” Yellen noted: “The distribution of income and wealth in the United States has been widening more or less steadily for several decades, to a greater extent than in most advanced countries.”
      But her long-term views on the nation’s debts have some progressives worried that she may look to cut welfare programs once Covid-19 is, finally, behind us. “The US debt path is completely unsustainable under current tax and spending plans,” she said in February.
      Neera Tanden, head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
      The president of the left-leaning Center for American Progress will be the first woman of color to head the OMB if she is confirmed. But Republicans, angered by her partisan tweets, have said she stands “zero chance” of being approved if they keep control of the Senate.

      Neera Tanden
      (@neeratanden)
      Imagine a world where Mitch McConnell is not in the Senate. Now let’s go make that happen. https://t.co/iOwO3GgDf1

      February 13, 2019

      Her India-born mother, Maya, relied on food stamps and other government programs to raise her children after her divorce and Tanden is a strong supporter of a better social safety net.
      “I’m here today thanks to my mother’s grit, but also thanks to a country that had faith in us, that invested in her humanity, and in our dreams,” she said this week.
      The OMB is the largest office within the executive office of the president and oversees the development and implementation of the federal budget. Her priorities are unmistakable.
      “Budgets are not abstractions,” Tanden said. “They are a reflection of our values. They touch our lives in profound ways and sometimes they make all the difference.”
      Adewale ‘Wally’ Adeyemo, deputy treasury secretary
      If confirmed, Nigerian-born Adeyemo will be the first Black person to serve as deputy Treasury secretary.
      “Public service is about offering hope through the dark times and making sure that our economy works not just for the wealthy, but for the hard-working people who make it run,” he wrote on Twitter this week.
      Like Yellen he has emphasized the need to address income inequality. “In California’s Inland Empire, where I had grown up in a working-class neighborhood, the Great Recession hit us hard,” he said this week. “We were one of the foreclosure capitals of the United States. The pain of this was real for me.”
      But his work as a senior adviser to BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, and past positions calling for “avoiding protectionism” and asserting the need to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal are likely to cause problems with progressive Democrats and even many Republicans in the post-Trump era.
      Cecilia Rouse, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
      Another first, Rouse will be the first Black chair of the Council of Economic Advisers if she is confirmed.
      Currently dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, Rouse is another expert in labor markets. Among her most famous research papers is a study of sexism in auditions and hiring for symphony orchestras.
      An expert on the impact of education on the labor force and long-term unemployment, Rouse has also championed paid sick leave. Last year, nearly 34 million workers – about a quarter of the US workforce – lacked paid sick leave.
      While supportive of the private sector, she recently wrote that the pandemic had exposed “a ‘Franken-system’ of support that is inadequate, costly, unnecessarily bureaucratic, and ultimately not trusted by many Americans”. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in World Politics

      The Road Leading to the India-China Standoff

      by

      The reason for the China-India standoff in the Galwan Valley may not be the oft-mentioned construction of the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldie (DSDBO) road. The new thoroughfare improved Indian logistics in the Ladakh area, meaning that supplies and troops can be deployed with far greater speed. While the DSDBO might have irked China, Beijing has deeper …
      Continue Reading “The Road Leading to the India-China Standoff”
      The post The Road Leading to the India-China Standoff appeared first on Fair Observer. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Why Is Foreign Investment Flooding Into India?

      by

      For years, India suffered from what came to be called the “Hindu rate of growth” — a result of Jawaharlal Nehru’s policy choices. India’s first prime minister had a fascination for the Soviet Union and championed socialism. In India, this socialist economic model was incongruously implemented by a colonial bureaucracy with a penchant for red tape.

      Consequently, the license, quota and permit raj, a system in which bureaucrats commanded and controlled the Indian economy through byzantine regulations, throttled growth for decades. Once the Soviet model started collapsing in 1989, the Indian economy came under increasing pressure. A balance-of-payments crisis led to the 1991 economic reforms. Thereafter, India consistently grew at a rate of more than 5% per year until 2019.

      What Ails Corporate Governance in India?

      READ MORE

      During the COVID-19 pandemic, that growth has stalled. In the first quarter of India’s financial year that begins on April 1, the economy shrunk by a record 24%. Forecasts estimate that it will shrink further, although the rate of the contraction will decelerate considerably over the next two quarters. This contraction has left little elbow room for a government fixated on redistributive policies and fiscal restraint. This fixation is a hangover from the past.

      Historically, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been more market-friendly than other political parties. In fact, the BJP broke new ground in the early 2000s by targeting and achieving a growth rate in excess of 8% when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was prime minister. Despite such high growth, the BJP lost the 2004 election. 

      Foreign Investment Hits Record Figures

      The BJP has not forgotten Vajpayee’s defeat. In particular, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a key lesson and focused on providing services to the masses. As a result, the government has focused on redistribution and taxation. It has put growth on a backburner. In 2018, the Modi government embarked upon what these authors termed Sanatan socialism, a policy that courts the poor with financial transfers and private provision of services. This strategy was vindicated by a resounding electoral victory in 2019.

      Today, COVID-19 is posing fresh challenges to the economy and to the Sanatan socialism policy. The growth slowdown in India is greater than in other emerging economies. The opposition has upped the ante and is blaming the government. Some business leaders are questioning the government’s lockdown strategy. This puts the BJP on the defensive regarding the economy.

      Yet even during such a growth shock, foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI) have been pouring into India. Surprisingly, the FDI has hit record figures. In the first five months of this financial year, $35.7 billion has come into India. The FPI figures are also at an all-time high. In November, foreign investors plowed $6 billion into Indian capital markets, beating figures for Taiwan and South Korea. What is going on?

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      Three key facts explain this inflow. First, corporations from the US and the Gulf have bought big stakes in Reliance Industries, India’s biggest conglomerate. They are also buying shares in Indian companies. In effect, they are betting on future growth.

      Second, the Performance Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme has gained some traction. The purpose of the PLI is to boost electronic manufacturing in the country. So far, India has been too dependent on China. Current tensions along the border have led India to change tack and give financial incentives to companies who manufacture in-house. Players like Samsung, Pegatron, Foxconn, Wistron and AT&S have responded well to the PLI.

      Third, global corporations might be diversifying their supply chains to mitigate the risk of manufacturing exclusively or mainly in China. This strategy to tap alternative supply chains to China is widely known as China Plus One, and India might be benefiting from it.

      Modi has doubled down on an advantageous situation. Sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and organizations with over $6 trillion of assets under management attended a summit organized by the prime minister in the first week of November. In addition to Modi, India’s business leaders such as Mukesh Ambani of Reliance Industries Limited, Ratan Tata of the Tata Group and Deepak Parekh of Housing Development Finance Corporation pitched to these investors. More foreign investment might follow soon.

      What Lies Ahead?

      If investment is flowing in, what are its implications for the Indian economy? First, India will experience a growth spurt within three to four quarters from now. In recent years, private investment has been weak because of a banking crisis. Indian banks lent large sums to big borrowers who had no intention or ability to pay back their debts. This meant that they had no money or appetite to lend to bona fide businesses. A credit crunch ensued, investment suffered and so did growth. Increased FDI will reverse this trend and fuel growth by restoring investment.

      Second, India will experience job growth thanks to higher FDI. The entrance of new players and the revitalization of older ones will increase employment. The government has already instituted major labor market reforms to encourage manufacturing and other labor-intensive activities. 

      Third, increased employment could boost domestic demand, raising growth rates. These might materialize by the 2022-23 financial year, just in time for the next general election. The FDI flowing in right now might be boosting the BJP’s 2024 reelection chances.

      Finally, the record FDI is giving the Modi administration a leeway to achieve geopolitical goals. With cash coming in from friendly economies, the government is limiting economic engagement with nations hostile to India, especially in core sectors such as power, telecommunications and roads. Aimed largely at Chinese and probably Turkish entities, the move could benefit European, American and East Asian companies from Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

      India’s new economic direction reflects the seismic shift in the global economy. The post-1991 era is over. As during the Cold War, countries are now mixing politics and business again.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Has political consensus become a pipe dream? | Letters

      by

      Perhaps the liberal democratic managed capitalism desired by Martin Kettle did exist in the 1950s, including the new welfare state in the UK (The toxic polarisation of our politics can be reversed, but it will take humility, 26 November). It didn’t prove robust – the Conservatives moved to the right and embraced free-market capitalism; regulation exists but is weak and largely captured by “experts” from the relevant market sectors.It is difficult to see how the idealised consensus can be created today, especially within one state. Multinational companies moving activities to poorly regulated locations and tax havens means that regulation must be multinational. The EU is attempting to regulate and tax tech and online firms, cooperation with which the UK has abandoned. The replacement of Donald Trump by Joe Biden doesn’t mean that economic nationalism will go out of fashion.Kettle is right that respect for the truth is indispensable. The problem is that honest conservatism has gone and, internationally, the right has adopted untruth as a weapon. This approach will continue as it has proved successful. Trump has lost the election, but the size of his vote and support for his untruths demonstrate just how successful.Talking – and listening – to each other in a truthful and respectful way is a good thing, but it needs that approach from all parts of the political spectrum. Kettle implies that such consensus-seeking would inhibit the left from offering radical solutions to our problems, because that may destroy any consensus. Is that how democracy works?Doug SimpsonTodmorden, West Yorkshire• Martin Kettle rightly highlights polarisation and the growth of the “I” society since the 1960s. Surely it is no coincidence that this coincided with a digital revolution that changed all our lives? Last year, I revisited California 50 years after doing an MBA at Stanford University. The wealthiest state in the world has failed to solve homelessness in the streets or congestion on the roads. Black people have been displaced by escalating house prices.All the talking and listening in the world will be of little value unless governments get control of the land and finance needed to build a fairer society. We should be using technology to map inequalities and invest in bridging the gaps rather than consoling ourselves with webinars and games.Dr Nicholas FalkExecutive director, The Urbed Trust• It is possible to share Martin Kettle’s hope for a less divided America without romanticising the 1950s. One need only recall those who left for Europe when “cooperation” was not shown to their differing political beliefs. The 50s also saw the enlargement of the attorney general’s list of subversive organisations. A loyalty oath was required by anyone wishing to enter a graduate programme or benefit from a scholarship, and the House Committee on Un-American Activities destroyed careers. Dwight Eisenhower was no Donald Trump, but neither was he a hero to those not in the political mainstream.Susan ZagorLondon• On reading how Labour’s general secretary has banned local parties from discussing the loss of the whip from Jeremy Corbyn (Report, 27 November), I was reminded of how Joseph Stalin tried to make Leon Trotsky a non-person in Russia. It is marvellous where the party leadership takes its inspiration from.Terry WardWickford, Essex More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      What Ails Corporate Governance in India?

      by

      Most businesses perish not because of strong competition or adverse macroeconomic conditions but because of cracks within. One such failing is weak corporate governance. For publicly listed companies, this often translates to controlling shareholders or “promoters” pursuing policies and practices in their own interests at the expense of minority shareholders. It turns out that companies with such promoters are at greater risk of crises and near-death moments in bad economic cycles. Those companies with better governance, where promoters act responsibly in the interests of shareholders, tend to do better during adversity. In fact, savvy investors now treat good corporate governance as an intangible asset.

      This can be best seen in India’s banking sector. In general, private sector banks have practiced better governance than state-owned ones. Consequently, their financial and operating metrics also tell a story of profitable growth with less asset quality issues than their public sector peers. No wonder that private sector banks trade at a higher valuation than public sector ones.

      360˚ Context: The State of the Indian Republic

      READ MORE

      Higher valuation puts these banks into a virtuous growth cycle. They are able to raise capital cheaply with less dilution. This reinforces their already high return ratios, which in turn continue to support a higher valuation. This self-perpetuating cycle has led to long-term compounding of shareholder returns. State-owned peers have fared much worse.

      Despite a large number of state-owned banks, the majority of credit growth in India is led by private sector banks. In fact, state-owned banks are struggling and the government is forced to merge them to ensure their survival. The success of well-run private banks demonstrates how good governance can lower a company’s cost of capital. That is not all. The resulting higher valuation also gives such companies immense pricing power in corporate transactions and talent management, widening their economic moat. 

      Multiple Issues

      India boasts of the oldest stock exchange in Asia, which is also the region’s largest. However, corporate governance in India still lags behind many other places like Singapore or Taiwan. India must understand that good corporate governance is the foundation of a lasting business. It builds investor confidence and has other benefits. India is short of capital and needs to earn investors’ trust. Without an infusion of capital, the Indian economy will fail to thrive. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      There are multiple issues that plague corporate governance in India. First is the lack of accountability among controlling shareholders. For example, promoters get away with appointing their friends, ex-employees and business-school classmates as independent directors with no one raising an eyebrow. Often, statutory auditors are given only one-year extensions to pressurize them to “comply” with management demands. Compliant auditors tend to persist for too long, developing far-too-cozy relationships with the very people they are supposed to keep an eye on. With no strong checks and balances, promoters are in effect incentivized to take advantage of minority shareholders. 

      Second is the slow and selective enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the country’s market regulator. Cases against the management’s missteps take years to resolve. SEBI generally hands out warnings or mild punishments. This could be because SEBI does not have enough resources to deal with a large number of cases, or it could be a lack of authority or competence. In certain cases, promoters are extremely powerful and politically connected. Given that regulators are political appointees, it is far from easy for them to ignore pressure from politicians, remain impartial, punish the powerful and deliver justice.

      Third is the fact that markets do not punish poorly managed companies for their misdeeds. India needs deeper markets with broader participation for true price discovery. Stock markets must be treated as marketplaces, not as forums for votes of confidence on the government’s economic policies. Because governments place too much importance on market performance, they have an incentive to keep them inflated. Indian corporate bond markets are even worse than stock markets in terms of participation. They are really accessible to only a handful of companies. 

      Fourth is the lack of transparency and weak disclosure requirements. This further perpetuates weak governance. The most detailed yearly disclosures by Indian companies are annual reports, which are often colorful marketing decks instead of detailed, factful and insightful documents, like the 10-Ks in the US. The quarterly earnings report for many companies is just a one-pager. This discloses summary items only without any breakdown of details.

      Earlier, manufacturing companies were mandated to disclose operational details pertaining to capacity, production and inventory. A few years ago, this disclosure requirement was done away with. Now, the only time companies make adequate disclosures only during their initial public offerings, which is a mere one-time event instead of an annual exercise.

      Bringing Sense to the Madness

      The only way to bring some sense to the madness in India’s public markets is to give more independence, power and resources to SEBI. At the same time, India must seriously penalize auditors and boards of companies for overlooking management follies. In addition, the authorities must incentivize and protect whistleblowers in a similar manner to developed economies.

      Some argue that complying with higher disclosure requirements might be too costly for smaller companies. That is not true. Furthermore, even the top 100 Indian companies default frequently on mandatory disclosures. Instead of reducing requirements for disclosures, India should lower costs of disclosures and compliance by using more technology.

      Another way to improve the health of India’s public markets is to increase market participation and trading volumes. Then good corporate governance would be rewarded while poor corporate governance would be penalized. Making short-selling a smoother affair might make the market deeper and more liquid. To increase depth in corporate bond markets, India must make lasting banking reforms. This involves privatization and granting more powers to the banking regulator.

      An unintended consequence of banking reform might be the improvement of India’s infrastructure. Currently, many state-owned enterprises in infrastructure sectors such as power are mismanaged because their bosses are able to buy time by restructuring their bank loans. Banking reforms will make that impossible and will transform this sector too.

      A combination of disclosure, regulation and enforcement can improve corporate governance. Reforms can also reduce conflicts of interests as well as create the right incentives and disincentives for Indian companies. These would inevitably lead to some short-term backlash, but the substantial long-term benefits are too significant to be ignored.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The US is on ‘inequality autopilot’ – how can Biden's treasury pick help change course?

      by

      Teresa Marez has never heard of Janet Yellen, likely to be the next treasury secretary of the United States. But she and millions of other Americans have a lot riding on the decisions Yellen will make if and when she is confirmed next year.The coronavirus has upended Marez’s life. Her savings are almost exhausted and she is worried about her unemployment benefits, which run out next week. “It’s so hard. It’s just such a mess,” said the mother of two in San Antonio, Texas. “We just need Congress to make a decision,” Marez said. “As long as they are in limbo, we are in limbo.”Marez, 45, is one of the millions of Americans still suffering from the economic devastation wrought by the coronavirus pandemic and whose plight will be the top priority of incoming president Joe Biden and his treasury secretary pick.The situation is dire. About 20 million Americans are currently unemployed. For many hunger has become a major issue. Government figures show that the week before Thanksgiving – America’s biggest feast day – 5.6m households struggled to put enough food on the table. Huge, haunting lines have formed at food banks across the country and years of neglect and underfunding of the systems to help those in need have worsened their plight.Last week Marez spent three and a half hours on hold waiting to speak with someone at a Texas unemployment office to hear whether she would get a new form of unemployment when her existing funds expire. The answer was a noncommittal maybe. “Three and a half hours on hold in mid-morning just to get that answer,” she said.According to the Century Foundation, 12 million Americans will be cut off from their jobless benefits on 26 December. A disproportionate number of those people will be women and Latino, like Marez, or Black and young, the groups hardest hit by the economic downturn. More

    • 75 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Land Reform Can Transform India’s Economy

      by

      According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, India faces a serious decline in employment due to the COVID-19 crisis. An estimated 122 million people lost their jobs during the first quarter of 2020. Streams of migrant workers returned to their villages — often the only fallback option for the millions working in urban informal sectors. Regardless of their vows to never come back to the cities, the majority of them will likely have to return in order to earn their livelihood. In the present state of affairs, agriculture, the mainstay of rural India, cannot offer them incomes comparable to industries and construction firms in cities.

      360˚ Context: The State of the Indian Republic

      READ MORE

      Despite its falling share in the economy, agriculture is India’s most important sector. Its contribution to the country’s GDP has decreased from 51.81% in 1950-51 to 15.87% in 2018-19, but it still employs about 42% of the country’s workforce. While increasing shares of secondary and tertiary sectors is a natural phenomenon of economic growth, in India, this has happened without maximizing the potential for growth in agriculture. Per-acre yields of rice and wheat in India are drastically lower than those of other BRICS nations.

      The shift in GDP share is the result of high growth rates in secondary and tertiary sectors despite relative stagnation in agriculture. The agricultural sector still has a massive scope to generate greater income and employment. However, this can be done only with the spirit of liberalization, similar to what other sectors of the economy have received since the 1990s.

      Overregulation and Underutilization

      Soon after independence, land reform laws were enacted throughout the country with the objective of distributing land equitably and increasing the efficiency of farm operations. This produced only partial success due to a variety of reasons. The ownership of only 4% of operated land could be transferred to cultivators, 97% of which lies in just seven states — Assam, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra and West Bengal. Notwithstanding this uninspiring outcome, land reform laws foisted excessive restrictions on the tenancy of agricultural land.

      This has adversely affected the growth of agriculture in the country. Landowners are reluctant to lease out their land under formal tenancy due to their fear of losing it permanently. According to National Sample Survey Reports, about 15 million tenants cultivate 10 million hectares of land on an informal basis; 92% of these tenants are landless laborers or marginal farmers. They have no security of tenure or access to institutional credit, crop insurance and other benefits offered to farmers under government schemes. Due to legal restrictions on tenancy, many landowners who cannot cultivate themselves prefer to leave their land fallow. In 2015-16, 26.72 million hectares of land were left fallow across India.

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      These restrictions on access to cultivable land not only deprive poor people in rural areas of opportunities to enhance their incomes, but also have a detrimental effect on the growth of the entire agriculture sector. Simply formalizing tenancy and cultivating millions hectares of fallow land can be a game-changer for agriculture in India. Once tenants get security of tenure and access to institutional credit, they will have requisite incentives and funds to make long-term investments on their land.

      This can be achieved only with immediate and effective policy interventions by state governments. The National Institution for Transforming India, the premier policy think tank of the government of India, has set the ball rolling by publishing the Model Agricultural Land Leasing Act, 2016, to help the states enact new laws or make required changes to their existing laws on the tenancy. The Model Act seeks to formalize tenancy agreements, circumventing the restrictions imposed by the land-reform laws of the state. It aims to integrate the security of tenure along with the protection of ownership. However, until now, only a few states have gone ahead in this direction.

      Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh have amended their existing laws to allow the renting of agricultural land on liberal terms. The Maharashtra Agricultural Land Leasing Bill, 2017, now awaits the assent of the president of India. The Andhra Pradesh Land Licensed Cultivators Act, 2011, was enacted even before the Model Act of 2016 was framed. This special law has recently been replaced with the Andhra Pradesh Crop Cultivator Rights Act, 2019. The other states also need to implement this vital reform to transform agriculture in their states.

      Alternate Solutions

      The enactment or amendment of laws is only a first step in improving the access of the rural poor to the land. Even in states where these laws have been enacted, very few landowners and tenants have come forward to enter formal agreements. Landowners are still apprehensive of losing their land, and tenants are still afraid of getting ousted if they insist on formal agreements. Therefore, state governments also need to effectively communicate with tenants and landowners to allay their fears and convey the benefits of formal agreements to them.

      Until the time when requisite laws are enacted effectively, group loans can provide relief to informal tenants. In Kerala, where tenancy is illegal, about 250,000 informal tenants have organized themselves into joint liability groups. These groups receive crop loans from banks without requiring formal tenancy agreements. The guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development allow such agreements without requiring formal tenancy. Alternatively, Odisha has recently launched the Balaram scheme to provide agricultural credit to groups of landless laborers. Other states should also liaise with banks to provide credit to informal tenants until the time when legal provisions for allowing tenancy are put in place.

      Such reforms have enormous potential to revamp and develop Indian agriculture, especially during the ongoing economic turmoil. At the national level, the central government has shown the way forward by deregulating agricultural markets. Now it is time for states to act decisively.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More