The golden era of Indian economy

The Border Security Force Camel Band parades on Republic Day at Rajpath, New Delhi, India, Jan. 26, 2015. (Wikimedia Commons)
Short Url
Updated 25 January 2023
Follow

The golden era of Indian economy

  • The India of 2023 is very different from the India of 1947, and the India of 2047 will be different from the India of 2023
  • There is certainly much that is uncertain in the world, but there is also much of which we can be certain; within that band of certainty, it is impossible to dispute India’s inexorable economic rise

India recently celebrated 75 years of independence. The idea of “Amrit Kaal” builds on this with a road map for the next 25 years, taking us to 2047 when India will celebrate 100 years of independence.

The India of 2023 is, of course, very different from the India of 1947, and the India of 2047 in turn will be different from the India of 2023 in ways few can anticipate and project; if one casts one’s mind back, how many would have guessed the changes wrought in India over the past 25 years?

The world is an uncertain place, and in the long term even more so. While the future is always uncertain, the current state of the world has been permeated with an additional dose of uncertainty as a result of factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions, the collapse of the multilateral system and regionalism, the retreat of advanced countries from globalization, and the dreaded warnings of “recession” in some of those countries.

These are external shocks that have been thrust on India, as they have on many emerging market economies, and underline the collapse of institutions that provide global public good, the Bretton Woods institutions included.

Global governance has yet to accept the rise of economies such as India. Lord Keynes is often quoted, usually out of context, as sharing the cliche: “In the long run we are all dead.” If one reads the complete text (“The Tract on Monetary Reform,” 1923), one will find his intention was not quite what this out-of-context quote might convey.

There is certainly much that is uncertain in the world, at present and for the long term. But there is also much of which we can be certain. Within that band of certainty, it is impossible to dispute India’s inexorable economic rise.

Much was made of the Goldman Sachs report “Dreaming with BRICS: The path to 2050,” when it was published in 2003. BRICS refers to the leading emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

It predicted an average real rate of gross domestic product growth in India of about 5.5 percent, with the rise in aggregate GDP and per capita GDP by 2050 explained by the nature of the exponential function.

The report did not include a projected figure for 2047 specifically but did give one for 2045: It predicted that India’s aggregate GDP would be $18.8 trillion, with per capita GDP of just over $12,000.

None of the reasons behind these optimistic projections have been nullified by the current global uncertainty — increase in savings/investment rates as a result of demographic transition and income growth, growth drivers in more efficient land, labor and capital markets and productivity enhancement.

To use an economist’s expression, India is still within the production possibility frontier, not on it. To put it another way, aggregate growth for India is a summation of growth in states, and states are within their respective frontiers, providing plenty of endogenous slack for growth.

Had events in the external world been more benign, India might have grown at 9 percent. Typically, one tends to extrapolate the gloominess of the present into the future. It is by no means obvious that global conditions will continue to be difficult for the next 25 years. But even if that were to be the case, India still might not grow at 9 percent. What growth rate seems reasonable, therefore?

The answer depends on the person making the projection and the assumptions that are made. A nominal figure depends on assumptions about inflation, which is why projections are often presented in real terms, in today’s dollars. A dollar figure also depends on assumptions about the dollar/rupee exchange rate, which is why projections are often based on the current exchange rate (the Goldman Sachs report assumed appreciation of the rupee vis-a-vis the dollar.) A prediction based on purchasing power parity is, naturally, different.

With inflation and exchange rate fluctuations out of the way, then, what trajectory of real growth in India sounds reasonable? The pessimistic forecaster will point to domestic inefficiencies and the state of the wider world and opt for 5.5 percent. The optimistic forecaster will point to empowerment through easier living and the provision of basic necessities, greater ease of doing business, supply-side reforms, and the government’s capital expenditure and opt for 7.5 percent.

That is the rough range of growth to consider, with recognition that as an economy grows, growth rates slow. As one moves up the development ladder, it becomes more difficult to grow as quickly, with the caveat that different states are at different levels of development and so there is plenty of slack.

To return to long-term uncertainty, one can plug in one’s own assumptions about real growth, say something like 6.5 percent, midway between the extremes of 5.5 percent and 7.5 percent. Based on that, India’s per capita income in 2047 would be something like $10,000 and the total size of the economy will approach $20 trillion.

These figures are broadly in the same range as the Goldman Sachs predictions, in which the role of exchange rate appreciation was relatively greater. In such projections, the role of real growth is relatively more.

If reforms succeed in driving economic growth higher than 6.5 percent — and such a “citius, altius, fortius” (faster, higher, stronger) possibility cannot be ruled out — the corresponding numbers will be higher.

Even with the relatively conservative figures, however, India would be the third-largest economy in the world, after the US and China, and this will naturally be reflected in India’s global clout. In a purchasing power parity ranking, India would be second-largest after China.

India’s annual rate of population growth has slowed and is now less than 1 percent. Nevertheless, in 2047, it will be the most populous country in the world, with a population of about 1.6 billion.

Expressions such as “developed country” are rarely used these days and the term no longer has a specific definition. The World Bank instead uses terms such as “middle-income.” India is currently classified as a lower-middle-income economy. By 2047, it will have moved to upper-middle-income classification.

When a country approaches a per capita income of $13,000, its status shifts to high-income. That will be when India can be said to be “developed.” In 2047, India will still fall short of this but the face of poverty in the country, as we know it, will have been completely transformed.

The measurement of poverty is based on the notion of a “poverty line” and, by using a multi-dimensional poverty index, the UN Development Program recently documented a sharp drop in the number of people in India categorized as “poor.”

As economies develop, the position of a poverty line of course shifts upward, beyond merely a subsistence level of consumption. Officially, however, the poverty line that continues to be used in India is still the Tendulkar poverty line. Unfortunately, consumption expenditure data, which is used to measure poverty, does not exist beyond 2011/12. Therefore different analysts now use different assumptions to measure poverty.

If, for example, one uses periodic labor force survey data and the Tendulkar poverty line, the poverty ratio (the percentage of the population below the poverty line) is currently about 17 percent. By 2047, it is forecast that this will have fallen to about 5 percent.

Sustainable Development Goal reports, among other analyses, have documented pockets of deprivation in specific geographical regions, which have been targeted by the government through its Aspirational Districts Program. India is a heterogeneous society and so despite the provision of basic necessities — such as physical and social infrastructure, financial inclusion, access to markets, technology and digital access — and an overall message of empowerment, there will continue to be pockets of poverty in the country, even in 2047.

But the nature of that poverty will be very different compared with today. India will have achieved universal literacy, or be pretty close to it. UNDP uses the Human Development Index, an aggregate measure, to gauge the development of people beyond poverty ratios. Currently, India is in the medium category of human development, based on HDI. By 2047, it will rank in the high category of human development.

There are five transitions underway and these will be even more pronounced by 2047. Firstly, there is a rural-to-urban shift, and urbanization correlates with development. By 2047, almost 60 percent of India’s population will be urbanized. It is predicted that Delhi and Kolkata will have populations of about 35 million, and Mumbai more than 40 million. The mind boggles at such figures and government programs are being developed with the aim of ensuring urbanization is better managed.

Secondly, there will be greater formalization of the economy. Such formalization is another factor that correlates with growth and development. Employees will have formal job contracts. Micro, small and medium enterprises will be legally registered. Indian companies will become larger, more efficient, and fully integrated into global supply chains.

Thirdly, the percentage of the population that earns a living from agriculture will decline. Agriculture’s share in gross domestic product will decline to something like 5 percent, and the percentage of the population earning a living from agriculture will not be more than 20 percent. Fourthly, there will be a shift in agriculture toward commercialization, diversification and larger farms.

Fifthly, there will be greater participation of citizens in governance, in keeping with the theme of “sabka prayas” (everyone’s effort). For years, there was a colonial chip on the nation’s shoulder. But present-day India is a proud India, a resilient India, an aspiring India. Amrit Kaal reflects that, and the country is making great strides on economic fronts, with greater confidence and entrepreneurship.

  • Bibek Debroy is the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister in the Government of India.

NATO chief ‘cautiously optimistic’ for Ukraine peace breakthrough

Updated 2 sec ago
Follow

NATO chief ‘cautiously optimistic’ for Ukraine peace breakthrough

  • NATO chief Mark Rutte said Thursday that he was “cautiously optimistic” for progress toward peace in Ukraine, but that it was up to Russia to take the “necessary next steps”
NATO chief Mark Rutte said Thursday that he was “cautiously optimistic” for progress toward peace in Ukraine, but that it was up to Russia to take the “necessary next steps.”
“I’m still cautiously optimistic that if also the Russians are willing to play ball, and not only the Ukrainians are doing this... that you could get to some breakthroughs over the next couple of weeks,” Rutte said at a NATO meeting in Turkiye.

New militarized border zone spurs national security charges against hundreds of immigrants

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

New militarized border zone spurs national security charges against hundreds of immigrants

SANTA FE, N.M.: Several hundred immigrants have been charged with unauthorized access to a newly designated militarized zone along the southern US border in New Mexico and western Texas since the Department of Justice introduced the new approach in late April.
President Donald Trump’s administration has transferred oversight of a strip of land along the US-Mexico border to the military while authorizing US troops to temporarily detain immigrants in the country illegally — though there’s no record of troops exercising that authority as US Customs and Border Protection conducts arrests. The designated national defense areas are overseen by US Army commands out of Fort Bliss in the El Paso area in Texas and Fort Huachuca in Arizona.
The novel national security charges against immigrants who enter through those militarized zones carry a potential sentence of 18 months in prison on top of a possible six month sentence for illegal entry. The full implications are unclear for migrants who pursue legal status through separate proceedings in federal immigration court.
The Trump administration is seeking to accelerate mass removals of immigrants in the country illegally and third-country deportations, including Venezuelans sent to an El Salvador prison amid accusations of gang affiliation. The administration has deployed thousands of troops to the border, while arrests have plunged to the lowest levels since the mid-1960s.
The federal public defender’s office in Las Cruces indicates that roughly 400 cases had been filed in criminal court there as of Tuesday as it seeks dismissal of the misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor charges for violating security regulations and entering restricted military property. Court records show that federal prosecutors in Texas — where a National Defense Area extends about 60 miles  from El Paso to Fort Hancock — last week began filing the military security charges as well.
Las Cruces-based federal Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth is asking for input from federal prosecutors and public defense attorneys on the standard of proof for the trespassing charges “given the unprecedented nature of prosecuting such offenses in this factual context.”
Public defenders say there needs to be proof that immigrants knew of the military restrictions and acted “in defiance of that regulation for some nefarious or bad purpose.”
New Mexico-based US Attorney Ryan Ellison, appointed in April, says hundreds of “restricted area” signs have been posted in Spanish and English to warn that entry is prohibited by the Department of Defense, along New Mexico’s nearly 180-mile  stretch of border.
In a court filings, Ellison has said there’s no danger of ensnaring innocent people when it comes to immigrants who avoid ports of entry to cross the border in willful violation of federal law — and now military regulations.
ACLU attorney Rebecca Sheff said basic freedoms are at risk as the government flexes its power at the border and restricts civilian access.
“The extension of military bases ... it’s a serious restriction, it’s a serious impact on families that live in the border area,” she said.
The Department of Justice has warned Wormuth against issuing an advisory opinion on legal standards for trespassing in the military area.
“The New Mexico National Defense Area is a crucial installation necessary to strengthen the authority of servicemembers to help secure our borders and safeguard the country,” Ellison said in a court briefing.
Democratic US Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico expressed concern Wednesday in a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that anyone may be stopped and detained by US Army soldiers for entering a 170-square-mile  area along the border previously overseen by the Department of Interior and frequently used for recreation and livestock ranching.
Hegseth has emphasizing a hard-line approach to enforcement.
“Let me be clear: if you cross into the National Defense Area, you will be charged to the FULLEST extent of the law,” he said in a post on the social platform X.


Families of victims in South Korea plane crash file complaint against 15 officials

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

Families of victims in South Korea plane crash file complaint against 15 officials

  • Police suggested a complex incident like the Jeju Air crash would require a lengthy investigation but declined to say when they expect to wrap up their probe

SEOUL, South Korea: Families of victims of December’s devastating plane crash in South Korea have filed a complaint against 15 people including the transport minister and the airline chief who they believe are responsible for the disaster that killed all but two of the 181 people on board.
Police and government officials have already been investigating the Jeju Air crash, so the complaint is largely seen as a symbolic step calling for a swifter and more thorough probe. Many bereaved families complain of what they see as a lack of meaningful progress in efforts to determine what caused the disaster and who is responsible.
On Tuesday, 72 bereaved relatives submitted the complaint to the Jeonnam Provincial Police agency in southern South Korea, according to their lawyers and police.
The 15 people cited in the complaint include the transport minister, Jeju Air’s president and airline officials handling maintenance and safety issues, along with officials at Muan International Airport who are responsible for preventing bird strikes, air traffic control and facility management, according to a statement from a lawyers’ group supporting the relatives.
The statement said the crash was “not a simple accident but a grave public disaster caused by negligent management of risks that must be prevented.”
“Four months after the disaster, we can’t help feeling deep anger and despair over the fact that there has been little progress” in the investigation, Kim Da-hye, a bereaved family member, said in the statement.
Lawyer Lee So-Ah said Wednesday the complaint would formally require police to brief bereaved families of their investigation, though police have so far only voluntarily done so.
The Boeing 737-800 operated by Jeju Air skidded off the runaway at the Muan airport on Dec. 29 after its landing gear failed to deploy, slamming into a concrete structure and bursting into flames.
Authorities have since said they found traces of bird strike in the plane’s engines and that the plane’s two black boxes stopped recording about 4 minutes before the crash. Many analysts said the concrete structure, which housed a set of antennas called a localizer that guides aircraft during landings, should have been built with lighter materials that could break more easily upon impact.
But no exact cause of the crash has been announced and no one has been legally persecuted yet over the crash, the country’s deadliest aviation disaster since 1997.
Jeonnam Provincial Police agency officials said they’ve been investigating the accident. They suggested a complex incident like the Jeju Air crash would require a lengthy investigation but declined to say when they expect to wrap up their probe.


Ukraine peace talks: What are Kyiv and Moscow’s positions?

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

Ukraine peace talks: What are Kyiv and Moscow’s positions?

ISTANBUL: Delegations from Kyiv and Moscow are set to hold their first direct talks on the possibility of ending the war in Ukraine for more than three years.
Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky has announced he will travel to Turkiye, while Russia’s Vladimir Putin indicated he will not attend the talks.
Despite the flurry of diplomacy and US President Donald Trump’s call for a swift end to the fighting, Moscow and Kyiv’s demands appear to be far apart.
Russia has repeatedly demanded to keep the territory in southern and eastern Ukraine that it occupies and for Kyiv to cede even more land.
Moscow in 2022 annexed four Ukrainian regions — Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson — despite not having full control over them.
Russia also annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 and has held it ever since.
President Vladimir Putin last year demanded Ukraine pull its forces out of parts of those regions that its army still controls as a prerequisite to any peace settlement.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said recognition of Moscow’s ownership of these territories was “imperative” for any negotiations.
Kyiv has said it will never recognize its occupied territories, including Crimea, as Russian.
But Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Kyiv may be forced to try to secure their return through diplomatic means — effectively conceding that Russia could maintain control over some land in any peace deal.
Russia has also demanded that Ukraine be barred from joining the NATO military alliance and has repeatedly said it wants Zelensky removed from office.
Russia had intended to topple Zelensky when it launched its invasion in 2022, with Putin calling in a televised address for Ukraine’s generals to oust him in a coup d’etat and then open talks with Moscow.
Putin in March floated the idea of Ukraine being put under a UN-backed “temporary administration,” refreshing his call to essentially remove Zelensky.
Russian officials have throughout the war called for the “de-militarization” and “de-Nazification” of Ukraine — casting Kyiv as a neo-Nazi “regime.”
Kyiv, the West and independent experts have rejected those narratives.
Russia has also sought at times to limit the size of Ukraine’s army, wants Ukraine to be declared a neutral state and for Western countries to stop supplying it weapons.
Zelensky has for months been calling for “security guarantees” for Ukraine to stop Russia invading again.
His top demand would be for Ukraine to be admitted to NATO, or for Ukraine to fall under the military alliance’s Article Five collective defense term.
Trump has however, dismissed the possibility of Ukraine joining the bloc and Russia says NATO membership would be “unacceptable.”
Instead, Kyiv is pushing for some other form of Western military commitment that would deter Moscow.
Britain and France are leading discussions about a possible European troop deployment to enforce any ceasefire, among a group of countries dubbed the “coalition of the willing.”
But Zelensky and Kyiv still want Washington to back-up any “security guarantee.”
Moscow has said it would not accept troops from NATO countries being deployed to Ukraine in any capacity.
Zelensky wants an immediate, full and unconditional ceasefire to cover combat on air, sea and land.
He accepted a US proposal for that in March but Putin rejected it.
Putin has instead ordered two short “truces” — over Easter and to cover Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebrations.
Air attacks dipped during the periods but Ukraine accused Moscow of violating both on hundreds of occasions.
In his late-night address from the Kremlin calling for the direct Russia-Ukraine talks, Putin said he did not “exclude” that some kind of ceasefire could be agreed between the sides.


Australia removes repeatedly vandalized James Cook statue

Updated 15 May 2025
Follow

Australia removes repeatedly vandalized James Cook statue

  • ‘Don’t think if we put it back up, it wouldn’t be just damaged again,’ says mayor

MELBOURNE: The Australian city of Melbourne will not replace a damaged monument to British explorer James Cook, the mayor said, for fear it will inevitably be vandalized again.
The granite-and-bronze memorial in the southeastern Australian city has been a favorite target of vandals, who tore the monument down last year and scrawled “cook the colony” on its surface.
It was similarly defaced in 2020 with spray-painted slogans of “shame” and “destroy white supremacy.”
Stephen Jolly, mayor of Yarra City in Melbourne’s inner suburbs, said the Cook monument would not be replaced because it would just be “damaged again.”
“I’m not in favor of demolishing statues of people in the past, even problematic ones, but don’t think if we put it back up, it wouldn’t be just damaged again,” he said in a statement Wednesday.
“It would be ongoing. How can we justify that?“
Vandals poured red paint over a different statue of Cook in the lead-up to Australia Day earlier this year.
Statues of colonial figures such as Cook are frequently targeted by vandals to draw attention to the plight of Australia’s Indigenous peoples.
Cook sailed into Botany Bay in 1770 and claimed eastern Australia for Britain under the doctrine of “terra nullius” — land belonging to no one — brushing over tens of thousands of years of Indigenous history.