India has more than one-sixth of the world’s population and is still a poor nation, so what happens in India is incredibly important for the welfare of the human race.
For a long time, good things were happening in India.
Cautious pro-business reforms in 1980s were followed by the dismantling of much of the nation’s overbearing regulatory state in the 1990s and 2000s. At the end of a long boom, India was five times richer per capita than in 1980.
Illustration: Mountain People
Although the gains tended to go to a small slice of the population, India managed to make great strides against extreme poverty. It is no longer the nation with the largest number of very poor people — that dubious distinction goes to Nigeria. Development has meant food, shelter and sanitation for hundreds of millions of Indians.
However, this good news is old news. The nation has entered a major economic slowdown: The growth number probably understates the magnitude of the slump.
Industrial production has shrunk over the past few months, as has the production of capital goods. Electricity generation has also slowed by more than GDP growth.
A series of interest-rate cuts has failed to stop the decline. India has real interest rates of minus-2.2 percent, lower than other developing Asian countries, suggesting that monetary policy is not going to be the answer.
The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has since last summer been engaging in structural reforms — cutting taxes, opening up the nation to more investment and privatizing industries — but, although these might help in the long run, they have failed to stem the recessionary tide.
Diagnosing the cause of the crisis has been difficult. In a new paper, economists Arvind Subramanian and Josh Felman argue that the root of the problem is not a shortage of aggregate demand, or even Modi policy blunders such as demonetization, taking currency out of circulation.
Instead, imbalances in the nation’s growth model have led to a buildup of bad assets in the financial system, they said.
Before the financial crisis of 2008-2009, India’s exports were growing robustly, but in about 2011-2012, when export growth slowed as a result of the crisis, investment fell, corporate profits were squeezed and business loans began to go bad, they said.
A rise in troubled loans on bank balance sheets should have caused a recession, but India’s economy was saved by a combination of falling oil prices, a boom in shadow banking and government stimulus.
These gave the economy a lift by causing consumption to rise while also creating a housing bubble, the economists said, but banks became ever-more exposed to real estate.
Now, India’s housing bubble has burst, with prices starting to fall as unsold inventory piles up, Subramanian and Felman said.
That is adding to the stock of bad loans on bank balance sheets — which had never really recovered from the souring of corporate loans a decade earlier — while also putting stress on the shadow banking system.
This was the cause of last year’s abrupt drop in lending, they said.
So to get India’s economy going again, bank balance sheets need to be cleaned up. Modi has been merging government-owned banks, but there is much more that can be done.
Similar to what the US Federal Reserve did in the US after 2008, the Reserve Bank of India should engage in quantitative easing to purchase loans from banks and shadow banks.
This might give rise to inflation, which is accelerating — something that was absent in the US after 2008 — but it could help get loans flowing through the economy again.
Modi’s government can also help by creating a so-called bad bank to absorb troubled loans.
However, at the same time, India should not ignore the need for long-term structural reforms. Cleaning up bank balance sheets might stem the slump, but until lenders see a major set of new opportunities, the economy will not return to rapid growth.
A 2016 paper by economists Juan Pablo Chauvin, Edward Glaeser, Ma Yueran and Kristina Tobio might hold a clue about what the new opportunity might be.
In most nations, including developing ones such as China and Brazil, the number and size of big cities is governed by a statistical relationship known as Zipf’s Law, which states that the second-biggest city is half as large as the biggest city, and so on.
However, India is an exception to the law, suggesting that it is under-urbanized. Two out of three Indians still live in rural areas.
Urbanization is a driver of growth. Moving people from farms to cities would help alleviate India’s low agricultural productivity, because the same land would be farmed by fewer workers.
If the new urban residents get jobs in labor-intensive manufacturing, incomes would rise very quickly, so India should couple urbanization with a drive to absorb some of the manufacturing jobs that are leaving China as a result of the trade dispute and the COVID-19 outbreak.
Even if city dwellers work in the service sector, it is better than being on farms.
India can help medium-sized cities grow by building better urban infrastructure and providing better urban services. It could even offer financial incentives to encourage people to move.
The subsequent revival in the housing market and a cheap labor force for low-end manufacturing, would give recapitalized banks more opportunities to lend.
That could give India a manufacturing growth model similar to that of Bangladesh or Vietnam, complementing its vaunted service industries.
Thus, a combination of macro and micro policies might be just what is needed to get India out of its frustrating and complex recession.
Noah Smith blogs at Noahpinion. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony Brook University. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS